< 19 February	21 February >

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Ozawa filmography[edit]

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

A collection of non-notable titles. Significant RS coverage to justify the existence of this list not found. All citations are to primary sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, do not merge. The nominator's assessment is correct. In addition, the guidance at the porn project discourages porn filmographies and suggests providing a link to where the they can be found. At most, a brief and partial list of notable films and career highlights may be included. There are no reliable reliable sources to distinguish these porn films and a full porn filmography would carry undue weight in the actress' article. • Gene93k (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and @• Gene93k rationale. Quis separabit? 19:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete above reasoning, needless list is promo-y. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Gene93k. Poorly sourced/unsourced laundry list of nn videos. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gene93k, List of nn videos - Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 18:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:15, 27 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 00:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Del Toro & Santana[edit]

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

Contested PROD. The article and source searching do not show that the company passes WP:NCORP. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Created by an SPA, this article is an advertisement. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant WP:PROMO. Narky Blert (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. (Disclaimer: I was asked to look into this through my talk page, likely since I probably prodded this, see also Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Del_Toro_.26_Santana). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Flunks WP:NCORP. and above reasoning appears sound. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 22:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:20, 27 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) 03:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Easter Island Statues[edit]

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

I'm an inclusionist, but surely this is WP:TOOSOON. (I also query whether the sole reference, dated 2010, relates to this band, formed in 2015.) Narky Blert (talk) 23:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of policy pout pout pout. I'm inclusionist also, but this band pretty much flunks GNG. Will probably become notable enough for me soon. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 23:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in reliable sources. And according to the article, they haven't even released their first EP yet. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per Whpq comments.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:25, 27 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. joe decker ^talk 02:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mhelliah[edit]

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

This festival fails WP:GNG, as tagged since November 2007. The article is also tagged as unreferenced since November 2007. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- could be a dictionary entry at best. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - assuming good faith, I searched on my own, and I found exactly one scholarly source (a passing mention in the London Manx Society newsletter), and no news sources. There are a few dozen sources in books, but again, they were only passing mentions. FWIW: I have Celtic ancestry and am eligible for Irish citizenship. Bearian (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:32, 27 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. joe decker ^talk 02:29, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Stephen[edit]

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

No significant, in-depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Every citation on the article appears to be to one of the subject's own columns, or to a profile page on a publication where he's published. Declined prod. Neutrality^talk 22:35, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find any independent sources. For fairness, I will message the article creator Webdude124 and the person who removed the original prod notice, Geekywebguy2017. Neither of them have been notified of this discussion. 06:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete journalist lacking the level of 3rd-party coverage we need to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely lacking any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:44, 27 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) 04:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump election victory speech, 2016[edit]

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

The speech that Donald Trump gave upon his victory is not notable. The victory is notable. The two were conflated when this article was created. Note that the "speech" and "issues" sections have no references. While the "significance" section does give a little bit of analysis that could suggest notability, it's clear that it is not lasting and sustained coverage that meets WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Most of the sources in the article, as well as the article, are about the victory itself rather than the speech specifically. κατάστασ η 02:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ^Falling_Gravity 02:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. There is nothing particularly notable about this speech. The campaign was notable. The results were notable. Those are already covered. Besides that, the style in fawning and unencylopedic (although perhaps a good pointer to what American news will be like once Trump shuts down the "fake news" outlets) AusLondonder (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a run-of-the-mill victory speech, though I suspect historians will look back on it as "a date that will live in infamy". Clarityfiend (talk) 02:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. I agree with the above. Neutrality^talk 03:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge with campaign article. I agree that this speech is not notable, and would be too much detail in the campaign article, so selectively merge the basic stuff. ansh 666 16:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016, per nom, per AusLondonder. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 22:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Smerge into campaign article as per Ansh666. As noted below by Muboshgu, WP:SSEFAR can be used as a argument for keeping, which although not persuading me to entirely change my !vote, still makes my 'smerge' weak. J 947 19:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the cited material is in the Background section (which is about the campaign), while the rest of the article (about the speech) is uncited OR based on the speech itself. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Imma go against the grain here and say KEEP--but (and this is a big but)ONLY on the condition that a link to its (blindingly obvious) historical predecessor is posted in the "See also" section: [EXTERNAL URL REDACTED -Oshwah]. Deal? Good. Supervoter (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)(Note: since this user is THE SUPERVOTER ™ , his votes are worth 10 REGULAR VOTES in all Wiki discussions in which he participates. Please see my userpage if you have questions. Thank you for your understanding.)[reply]

Delete While I am in-favor of deleting it, I also see argument for retaining it. Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 has its own article. However, that perhaps is because that speech was arguably more substinative and has more room to be analyzed. I see none of that in this article, which comes-across as an article about this speech for the sake of having an article about this speech.SecretName101 (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeping this because the Obama 2008 victory speech has an article is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And I don't know that that speech meets GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mentioned that because someone might argue that there exists a bias. However, I beleive they'd be incorrect if they made that argument. SecretName101 (talk) 18:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - A fair point. I was just responding to that hypothetical argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ahhh, gotcha! SecretName101 (talk) 04:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as said above, the speech was not specifically notable compared to some others. It might make sense to merge it, again, as mentioned above. South Nashua (talk) 05:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His victory was notable but that's WP:NOTINHERITED. This content may be useful somewhere but Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 is a large enough article already.LM2000 (talk) 00:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or (delete this one -and- Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008) (or redict both), because both have approximately the same amount of WP:RS and seem of equal significance/insignificance. I think it would make us look unfairly biased to keep one and not the other. I am open to changing my mind if I can be convinced the Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008 was more significant than this one. I personally don't think either speech was significant or worth the time it takes to listen, but we have to decide based on the WP:RS and not our own opinions, so I'm going more with the comparable WP:RS. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of significance: Richard Nixon's "I am not a Crook" speech has to be more significant, and we do not have an article on that. We do have Richard_Nixon's_resignation_speech. --David Tornheim (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is preventing you from nominating the Obama speech. I would likely !vote the same way I did here. It's not nominated now, though, so this thread cannot possibly end in the deletion of the other article. It's effectively an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. If the other article had just been nominated and was kept, I would be more sympathetic to the idea it should be any factor at all here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama election victory speech, 2008. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was history, I am ashamed that there are so many who want to delete it!!!ShadowDragon343 (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not every moment of history is notable. South Nashua (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Weak Merge into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016. Though there are sources about it, there doesn't seem to be enough reason to justify a stand-alone article (i.e. there are sources about every individual thing Trump does, but a subject worth mentioning on Wikipedia it needs to have a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, there is absolutely nothing special about this. We need to take a stand against this Trump related spam. We have articles about his family; his political positions; his immigration policy; his economic policy; his healthcare policies; his ancestry; his wall; his statements; his inauguration; his failed businesses; his bankruptcies; lists of his family members; et cetera, et cetera. Laurdecl ^talk 03:59, 26 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. While there may not be consensus to include per NFOOTY, there is consensus that this article meets GNG for independent reasons. (non-admin closure) Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:18, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne Shaw (footballer)[edit]

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

Hasn't played in the league Telfordbuck (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Whether or not he's played professionally, two of the citations look independent and are specifically about him (and yes, I did notice that one of them was from the Daily Mail, recently agreed to be non-WP:RS). Narky Blert (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. I've just added fresh info and a hot-off-the-press citation - a full column about Shaw in today's The Guardian. Narky Blert (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While he may fail WP:ATHLETE, he seems to have enough coverage to pass GNG, such as [1] and [2]. Mattlore (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. GNG takes more than a couple of tabloidy pieces. There are always "human interest" stories in the media when a small club play a big club in the FA Cup, whether tragic, heartwarming or, as in Mr Shaw's case, comic. Mr Shaw is the goalkeeping coach to Sutton United, a fifth-tier team drawn to play Arsenal in an unexpectedly late stage of the competition, who happens to be very fat. The sources currently present in the article are from the local paper from the Sutton area, the non-RS Daily Mail website, and the Evening Standard, a free-sheet that's given away in London to read on the train.
The pieces mentioned by Mattlore are two versions of the same story: that Mr Shaw apparently took advantage of a betting promotion connected with a major tabloid newspaper to make himself a few quid by eating a pie during the match, embarrassed his team by so doing, and might get into trouble with the football authorities.
A few articles in the lightweight end of the last few days' media hung on a fat bloke's non-playing involvement with a non-league team reaching the last 16 of the FA Cup doesn't convey individual notability. WP:N(E)#People notable for only one event says that "People known only in connection with one event should generally not have an article written about them. If the event is notable, then an article usually should be written about the event instead." If the event were notable, a redirect would be appropriate, but I suspect it isn't; had Sutton beaten Arsenal, it might have been. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While he may fail FOOTYN, he does fulfil GNG. The Royal C (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely enough to pass GNG, and it would be disingenuous to suggest that every article has been tabloidy. Does need a little bit of work, but absolutely no reason to delete this notable individual. Cindlevet (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Never done this before. I landed on this page because I wanted to read about Wayne Shaw on Wikipedia and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Not in the public interest to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vieira4 (talk • contribs)
Keep. Like the person above, I was looking for concise information on Wayne Shaw and thought Wikipedia would be the place to find this. Again, not in the public interest to delete. Koptor (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to pass GNG to me. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 17:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep for a National League footballer, he has significant coverage. And the pie eating incident is also generating him significant coverage, and so he just about passes WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because if he not passed by sportive criteria, he passed by GNG. Strange, if people looking for article about person and can't find it in Wikipedia. But maybe it's more "wide" question for "lovers od deletions"--Noel baran (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The pie-eating incident has made him a nationally notable figure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.192.5.17 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a clear-cut case of WP:ONEEVENT. Geschichte (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEEVENT JMHamo (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, classic case of WP:BLP1E. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note While the name of the league he played in is National League (division), don't be confused into thinking it's the top tier of English football. In fact, it's the fifth tier, so WP:NFOOTY isn't satisfied. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he plays in a 5th tier league. That is just not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The pie-eating incident has made him somewhat notable especially since The Football Association is on his case about Betting. Optimistic Wikipedian (talk) 04:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while article does fail WP:NFOOTY I also belive that it passes WP:GNG because of the large amount of media coverage the subject gained. WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply either as people were talking about this footballer well before February 20, see here. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant WP:BLP1E case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTBALL, WP:BLP1E... Giant Snowman 08:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Wayne has attracted significant notability in the popular press and in popular culture for a sustained period of time. Even prior to the pie incident he was gaining growing attention TF92 (talk) 08:55, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the pie eating and the subsequent betting/investigation case made it somehow reasonable to keep.--Preacher lad (talk) 10:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG. And BLP1E looks like BLPIE, hehe. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 11:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this seems like a BLP1E case to me, due to the lack of significant coverage before this week. He's not notable as a footballer, and it's hard to argue that getting fired for eating a pie makes him notable. In some cases it's appropriate to turn a BLP1E into an article about the event, but here that would seem ridiculous - 2017 Sutton United pie incident? That just highlights the lack of notability. More appropriate would be a minor merge/redirect to Sutton United (or to Sun Bets, if we had an article on it). Robofish (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a merge, but if it were, wouldn't Who Ate All the Pies? be a more appropriate target? Nfitz (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: It would if Piers Morgan's new version takes off! The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG met. Hmlarson (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this may have been BLP1E, if it weren't for his previous coverage. He got significant coverage the previous time Sutton fired him - [3]. And there was a comprehensive interview with him after he returned in 2015 [4]. At that point it was already arguably a weak keep. The recent coverage puts it well over the top. Nfitz (talk) 14:44, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reports in weekly local newspapers hardly amount to "significant coverage" in terms of establishing notability. He has only had attention from reliable sources in regard to this one incident. Jellyman (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in WP:GNG that precludes significant coverage in local weekly newspapers. Nfitz (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-name to reflect the event itself. He is definitely not notable as a footballer, but there is no question that the pie-eating incident has generated significant coverage. It's already been dubbed "Pie-gate". An article on the event itself is more appropriate per BLP1E, which could look at the wider issue of betting in football. It's even been covered by the The National Law Review here. I don't see what's so wrong with 2017 Sutton United pie incident myself.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Fails WP:FOOTYN and unlikely to satisfy it in future. Incident can be mentioned in articles on Sutton, this season's FA Cup, football betting.... Jellyman (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Nfitz and Inter&anthro Spiderone 12:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he was the subject of nationwide news ("Piegate") maybe even worldwide news from sources like BBC as well (not just newspapers) I think it is definitely notable. Hashim-afc (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although he fails FOOTY, he easily passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep borderline WP:BLP1E, however, I think there is enough coverage before the pie-eating incident to take outside of that. The whole reason the betting incident took place was that he was a notably large goalkeeper. That is covered in the article here [5] and here [6] - both predate the match in question. Think of it this way - bets would not be offered on a non-notable person. Even if you don't agree, he would have to be at least quasi-notable for best to be offered. Otherwise, no one would bet because they would have literally no idea who the bet is talking about. The betting scandal from the pie eating incident put him over the top. It's WP:BLP1E and not WP:BLP2E (or maybe even WP:BLP1.5E). RonSigPi (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – passes WP:GNG. Valmi ✒ 04:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a pass of the GNG, because when view from that perspective, it fails ONEEVENT. The inclusiveness of the ATHLETE guidelines is so very broad, that it really takes somethign exceptional to be justified by the GNG in this field. DGG ( talk ) 09:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Also per oneevent, which isn't even that significant. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It follows Wikipedia policies, It is also sourced very well. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject wouldn't satisfy the overly inclusive WP:NFOOTY. There is minimal coverage before this event, which makes this a WP:BLP1E. The reason we require multiple sources is so that we can have an NPOV article and the WP:BLP1E exists so that a biography doesn't give undue weight to certain events. The event itself is not really notable enough to have a separate article. Why should we then have a BLP? The article as it stands is essentially a WP:PSEUDO which I am not comfortable having on Wikipedia. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While certainly not a concrete reason to keep the article, the article itself has received more than 119,000 views since it was created, including almost 50,000 views the day after the pie-eating incident (see here). Many DYK nominations don't even receive that amount of views. While of course a good portion of the views were from editors from this deletion discussion, at the same time I belive that this shows that there is a genuine interest in the subject of this article. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:50, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly surprising: people enjoy being entertained by trivia, whether it's on YouTube, the Daily Mail website, or what's supposed to be an encyclopedia. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Ike[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The article is filled with unreliable sources. A search of the subject on google doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete nothing notable about the subject —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 04:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources cited are reliable. Google and newspaper searches produce no dedicated entries. Fails notability. Delete. Tapered (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The name ring's a bell but he lack's sufficient coverage, all i see online are reliable bloggers writing about his song's not the subject; so i think it should be deleted.--Obari2Kay (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've just spent time tidying up the article before realising it was flagged for deletion. Content really rather unsubstantial. However, there's absolutely nothing whatsoever to justify "Speedy deletion", as advocated by some. Maybe the article creator is a brand new editor or a new contributor to a Wikipedia editathon. Of course, they might equally be a paid editor or sock puppet -I've not checked. I assume those advocating speedy deletion have? Parkywiki (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable musician.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:47, 27 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. joe decker ^talk 02:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Michael Schwartzman[edit]

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

The biggest problem with this article is that there are no reliable sources. One is his website, the other is IMDb which is not reliable. He also does not seem to have the required multiple notable roles. Beyond this the article is overly promotional in tone, needlessly using praise modifiers on groups he was associated with. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:17, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As actor, he had minor supporting roles in two Disney films. As a musician, he once opened for a band in an arena. That is totally run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried, and I can't source it.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:16, 28 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 merge to Protests against Donald Trump. Selectively, so as not to overwhelm the target article. Although there is a strong "keep" minority, if one considers the "delete" opinions as well, I think the merger is the most consensual option. One does not need a crystal ball to anticipate that protests like this, with attendant media coverage, are going to continue as long as Donald Trump is in office. Therefore, editors should discuss how to structure the coverage of them in Wikipedia going forward, for example via an RfC. Options might include: protests per year, per month, per territory, etc. Sandstein 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not My Presidents Day[edit]

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

WP:RECENTISM, NOTNEWS, not notable. Having a protest is not necessarily enough for inclusion. This is no way near the scale of the Women's March. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be recent, but there are rallies taking place in many major US cities [7]. In addition, thousands have attended [8], [9], [10]. I think you jumped the gun nominating the article a mere 10 minutes after creation, as well. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This protest is taking place in multiple major cities. This nomination is premature and more time should be given for the article to expand. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a flawed argument. Articles in mainspace need to comply with policy at all times. If they don't comply with WP:DEL, they may be deleted. In such cases it's the creation of the article, not the deletion, that has been premature. WP:TOOSOON – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sure. I was meaning to remind reviewers that they were viewing a stub that did not reflect the scope of the subject, hoping they'd do some research and not vote based on Wikipedia's 'under construction' coverage. I still think the article should be kept per WP:GNG. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:54, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Protests against Donald Trump. I'm not sure every protest against Donald Trump merits a stand-alone article. p b p 22:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject is notable enough for its own article. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Protests against Donald Trump. Again, Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox for political activism. And not every protest deserves an article. — JFG ^talk 22:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox and not every article deserves an article. But I don't see either as a reason for merging this article, which is about a notable event that has received plenty of secondary coverage. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:25, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Protests against Donald Trump, per what p b p said. Ethanbas ^(talk) 22:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. There's going to be a lot of protests for the next four years. Not every single one deserves a stand-alone article. See the precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 London general election protest. No lasting significance per WP:EVENT. AusLondonder (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a major protest although, like the Day Without Immigrants 2017, which has an article. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not a major protest. There were 100 people in Oregon. AusLondonder (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thousands in New York though (and probably other cities). RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 22:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@AusLondonder: I'd have to disagree and say this was a major protest that involved quite a few major cities and certainly plenty of press coverage. The number of people participating in Oregon is not what we're discussing here. I am curious, do you still vote to delete now that the article has been expanded a bit? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge nothing but a stub, it amuses me that we have all these anti-Trump protest articles at AfD the whole time. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now start class. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Protests against Donald Trump. We don't need an article for every single protest that takes place in the US. It is newsworthy, but not encyclopediaworthy (WP:NOTNEWS). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump. This particular series of protests don't seem notable enough to warrant their own article. It doesn't seem to have received as much coverage as the Women's March and the airport protests, nor is it in the same scale as those two. κατάστασ η 01:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump. AHusain3141 (talk) 02:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable political event--Praveen:talk 04:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — notable. Needs some cleanup work, the tag is currently working against that. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 08:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This user has been blocked due to arbitration enforcements elsewhere. Jdcomix (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge into Protests against Donald Trump - Per numerous other users. Jdcomix (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - More than enough sources now that I look. Jdcomix (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for everyone !voting "merge," please consider that the size of the Not My Presidents Day article is already pretty large. Adding it to Protests against Donald Trump would make a large article even more unwieldy. In addition, the assertion that there is not a lot of coverage of the day is belied by the sources cited in the article which are, as of my writing, 45 - and I plan to add more information after I write this. There were thousands of people across the nation coordinating together in these protests. That is worthy of an encyclopedia article. It's not like this was one protest in New York City: it was across the country, with thousands of participants and received significant attention. This does not come under the WP:NOTNEWS criteria. There is 1) no original reporting here, 2) this is not routine news: it documents a large-scale event 3) N/A, 4) N/A. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closers please do not let political attitudes color the judgment of closure on this discussion. Some editors above have made comments that I feel shows a bias, intentional or not. This article was created in good faith by Another Believer to write about a large-scale event that should be included in Wikipedia based on GNG, with coverage in the news both locally and internationally. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl You need to AGF, the same can be said about your vote to keep. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith is important, you're right. But it's not going to stop me from doing what I think is right in discussing articles at AfD, in this case, calling out your extremely quick nomination for deletion. Nominating any article within 10 minutes of its creation is "jumping the gun." I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, Sir Joseph, I am leveling what I feel is valid criticism. BTW, I was not referring to your nomination as being political in tone, it's some !votes above that I was referring to (otherwise I would have said "the nominator" as I normally do in AfD). I assume no political motive for your nomination, I just think you nominated it too quickly and I disagree with your reasons for deletion. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Protests against Donald Trump after pruning, per Megalibrarygirl, to avoid undue weight. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andreas Philopater: Can you clarify a bit? User:Megalibrarygirl was advocating to keep the article, but you're using her commentary to vote merge? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Megalibrarygirl provides a "comment" arguing against merging because the article under discussion is "already pretty large" and that merging "would make a large article even more unwieldy". Pruning addresses that concern. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Seems to be a well referenced article. There may come a time in the future when articles such as this can be merged into one article, but at the moment history is in the making, so individual events are currently of significance and interest. Time will tell. Giano (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:NOTNEWS, WP:10YT, etc. We do document nearly every protest against Trump at Timeline of protests against Donald Trump but few of these pass the bar to get their own articles. This seems closer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inauguration of Donald Trump protests than it does to the more notable protests.LM2000 (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 00:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough information to warrant its own article. Kamalthebest (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news. Thus we do not cover events on one day in a seperate article when they are part of a large movement or trend.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I personally believe that most of this article's content can be trimmed, then we can transfer what's left to Protests against Donald Trump. Bobnorwal (talk) 23:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree -- Merge I feel that this article can be kept better maintained if it's together with the other micro article on Protests against Donald Trump. BoredBored (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There clearly is enough information to warrant its own article and this much content will not fit into Protests against Donald Trump. Merge is essentially telling this content to go away, which has NPOV implications. Trackinfo (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge an edited down version of contents to Protests against Donald Trump. There is enough to keep as part of that article, which should be split into campaign protests, post-election protests and post-inauguration protests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Protests against Donald Trump article. It is unnecessary to create a new page to mention about it. Marxistfounder (talk) 07:59, 28 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. joe decker ^talk 02:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Dobrik[edit]

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage in reliable sources. The only current source is the Youtube channel page for the subject and a WP:BEFORE search did not find any reliable sources. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 21:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since I made my nomination the creator of the page has added more sources but they are all just from YouTube, iMDb and other unreliable sites making them not reliable and making David Dobrik fail WP:GNG. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 21:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 22:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}) 17:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable Vlogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a well-known vlogger with a large following online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathon3378 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Jonathon3378 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete. I saw poor arguments both ways, so I did my own research, having never heard of the bro. Zero newspaper articles; nothing at the New York Times. I did get a few dozen Ghits, but they are entirely passing mentions of him on blogs and PRweb, or are about a similarly named tennis player. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 27 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) 04:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Rolph Seely[edit]

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

No passing of academic notability. His work is not impactful enough for prong 1, and nothing else even close. No passing of GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: If he was so non-notable, why did you create his article in the first place? p b p 15:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, delete p b p 19:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both my understanding of notability and Wikipedia consensus on the matter have evolved over time. I used to feel that editing works such as the one on Lehi's Jerusalem that Seely was an editor of was enough for notability. I have since come to realize that we need a bit more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mormon religious studies scholars are almost never cited outside of the LDS publication echo chamber, even when their work is serious and about the Old and New Testaments. I am aware of this predicament from an acquaintance in the same situation. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an emerging trend for works by Mormons even BYU religion profesaors to be published by mahor university presses. The quickest exampke of this I can think of is "The Mormon Image in The American Mind" by I believe J. D. Haws and published by Oxford University Press. This is more historical/political science. The religion side is a bit harder. Thus our article on Grant Hardy was deleted although his contributions to the actual study of the Book of Mormon are generally highly rated. However Seely still seems on the lower end for production of scholarly work and my general guess is not one of the main forces. I wish I could say otherwise put I don't think he rises to the level of notability. I am willing to stand by asserting that John Gee and several other scholars are notable but not Seely.

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional beauty queens[edit]

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

Bringing this back to AfD after it was closed a few months ago as no consensus. This article has not been improved at all since the last AfD, has no sources, and doesn't demonstrate a need for inclusion in Wikipedia. For lack of a better word, it is WP:LISTCRUFT. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the previous AfD was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional models, where the closer suggested it should have had an independent AfD instead of it being bundled. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Many real-life beauty queens don't satisfy notability requirements, much less fictional ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. There is nothing indicating why the concept of Beauty Queens in fiction is notable in any way, nothing here is supported by reliable sources, and this list is just a collection of minor bits cruft that will never be notable, such as characters that appeared in a single episode of long running series. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:01, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:52, 27 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) 04:17, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Niehaus[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NACTOR yet. Has only done Seattle theater and has minor role in Twin Peaks revival. Cannot find anything else that indicated notability. Rogermx (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete theatre roles were not in major productions, and commercial roles are not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 20 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) 03:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NiCole Robinson[edit]

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

As far as I can tell Robinson has only had one role that rose above being fleeting/minor. The notability guidelines for actors require multiple, and I just don't see that. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Roles like "Waitress", "Female Office Worker #1", "Teacher" and "Reporter #1" (all from IMDb) fail to satisfy my inclusionist tendencies. I looked at every entry in her IMDb profile. The only thing I could find of even passing interest is that she portrayed the minor character Margaret Hooper in 106 episodes of The West Wing. Fails WP:NACTOR. Narky Blert (talk) 23:58, 20 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. per WP:SKCRIT. No rationale has been offered, other than the nominator managing to sign his name. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional monarchy[edit]

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

SethMakaiWamboi (talk) 19:42, 20 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) 03:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zuber Mohammad[edit]

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

Speedy-deleted three times in 2016 and declined at Articles for Creation last week, but moved into Main space by the article's creator. The sole source is a dead link (also dead at the Wayback Machine), as are most of the External links. There is no indication here that the subject meets any of the notability requirements for musicians. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rapid Delete Search tools produce no reliable sources conferring notability. This article has been rejected in almost every possible way. Remove rapidly. Are there no sanctions to discourage the behavior demonstrated by the article's creator? Tapered (talk) 08:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bent0811 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)i have all refernces please do not delete this is very notable musician. his music hit in 5 countries.and secured no 1 in chart.[reply]

Show links, please. Tapered (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://epaper.patrika.com/721991/Patrika-Gwalior/15-02-2016#page/6/2 http://naiduniaepaper.jagran.com/Article_detail.aspx?id=29066&boxid=52252&ed_date=2016-12-28&ed_code=52&ed_page=13 https://postimg.org/image/ux13ahvu1/ https://postimg.org/image/kt2zuz7rl/

Thanks. That confirms delete nomination.

Please See this Links... http://www.bhaskar.com/news/MP-BPL-HMU-MAT-latest-bhopal-news-041507-1409632-NOR.html http://www.bhaskar.com/news/MP-BPL-HMU-zubair-5-countries-including-china-hits-on-youtube-channel-news-hindi-5380412-NOR.html

AnyBody There — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bent0811 (talk • contribs) 12:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Insufficient comprehensive coverage or evidence to pass WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Waggie (talk) 01:33, 26 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) 03:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agriauto Industries[edit]

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

Non notable--no usable references for notability -- No. 1 is their own website, no. 2 is mere inclusion in a short general notice about the industry, no.3 is a one paragraph press release,no.4 is a mere mention--just their name. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I declined the CSD request because it did have assertions of notability, but I agree they are not well-sourced, and a search for additional sources did not come up with more. Frank | talk 22:23, 27 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) 03:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GeoSure Global LCC[edit]

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

References consist only of press releases, notices of funding, and mentions in articles dealing with the whole range of these devices. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With nothing in Google books, the world would not notice if this company went ouf of business today. The article shows a shallow company (2013) history with sources in the article more oriented to consumer opportunities than coverage of the company. Fails WP:SUSTAINED. Unscintillating (talk) 15:49, 26 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. The Arena Football League is expressly covered by WP:NGRIDIRON--it is in fact first in the list of leagues named. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Miller (quarterback)[edit]

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

The sourcing is far short of GNG. Playing in the Arena Football league does not grant automatic notability, and I see no other sign of notability. John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes GNG. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] It also does pass WP:NGRIDIRON. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:25, 20 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 deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Rose (Rock Band). Kurykh (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edge of Your Dreams[edit]

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

Not notable. Creator blocked. Member of a band doing self promotion. The article the song page now redirects to is also AfD. Kellymoat (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 20 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 deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wild Rose (Rock Band). Kurykh (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another Shot[edit]

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

Not notable. Creator blocked. Member of a band doing self promotion. The article the page now redirects to is also AfD. Kellymoat (talk) 17:47, 20 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. joe decker ^talk 02:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JbdxGaming[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. RileyBugz ^{Yell at me} | _Edits 17:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG and BIO. Being a YouTuber is not enough. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 21:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The name sounded familiar so I looked through my CSD log - it has been speedily deleted before under WP:A7 under its current title and twice under Jbdx_gaming (and there's also Draft:Jbdx gaming). There's been no improvement at all - Youtube followers & views can both be "botted" so there's really no legitimate claim of notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Exemplo347 and KGirlTrucker81. Not many people might even see this dude, and I don't think this is Wikipedia - Worthy. Unless he happens to come on an American newspaper (like Vanoss did, only Canadian News), I vote for delete. (This caught my attention as I have seen it before and it's a stub class on WikiProject Video Games. Aaryan33056 (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not a notable YouTuber. TheDeviantPro (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . non-notable YouTuber.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:20, 27 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) 03:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Kravitz[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Article is a Biography of a Living Person with no references. BLP PROD removed by author of page. A WP:BEFORE search has found no indication of notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 20 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdoul Karim Cissé[edit]

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

Cissé does not seem to meet the inclusion criteria for footballers. He does not play in a fully professional legaue, and being on a national team alone is not grounds for inclusion. The coverage is not enough to meet the general notability guidelines. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep He's played for the Ivory Coast national team, which means he passes WP:NFOOTY (playing for a national team is grounds for inclusion). Number 57 09:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being a member of a national team is not grounds for inclusion. Playing with a national team in a Tier 1 competition is, but the article merely says he is a member of a national team, it does not identify that he played in any games as such, let alone Tier 1 games.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure about the phrasing of "being a member of a national team" as that can imply being in the squad but not necessarily playing. However, playing for a national team is grounds for inclusion as friendly matches are also Tier 1 International matches. His article states that he has made 3 appearances for the national team and if you go to the first reference (his Soccerway profile) you can see the matches listed that he has been involved in (some as an unsed sub but others (like this, a friendly against Equatorial Guinea) in which he has actually played). Number 5 7
Keep, passes WP:NFOOTY - has played international football per this match report. Apparently African Nations Championship games are now considered full internationals. Hack (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - further to User:Johnpacklambert's earlier comment, participation in a tier 1 international match is sufficient, not tier 1 competition. For what it's worth, African Nations Championships matches are recorded as friendlies by FIFA per the last link in my last comment. Hack (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - subject of the article clearly passes WP:NFOOTY, the subject has played in an international tournament (the African Nations Championship) and thus comfortably satisfies the WP:NFOOTY requirements. Even if the Hack's comment is correct and the African Nations Championship is really counted as a friendly, that still satisfies the requirement as the subject of the article appeared for his national team either way. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:28, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that a friendly is still a tier 1 international per WP:NFOOTY. Hack (talk) 05:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sorry it appears that I misinterpreted your post, either though I think we agree that this tournament the subject took part in is recognized as an international match — whether it be seen as a competitive match or a friendly. Inter&anthro (talk) 07:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 12:51, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has played in international matches for his country, meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL having played in a senior international match. Kosack (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - clearly meets WP:NFOOTBALL from the references in the article. I can't comprehend how this was nominated. Nfitz (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Given who the nominator is and his history of afd-ing without appropriate research, I sure can --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally pay attention to who is nominating, but I note that even after this discussion, they've nominated 3 more national teams players today. Perhaps User:Johnpacklambert can explain why he is doing this. I'm wondering if a trip to WP:ANI might be in order. Nfitz (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: Different sport, but you should see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaetan Augsburger as well --- PageantUpdater (talk) 21:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: @PageantUpdater: One more that may be worth looking at as well. Kosack (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per NFOOTBALL. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per above. Yet again a lack of research shown by nominator. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 13:48, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if there is any real evidence that he played for even a minute on the national team, then he passes. Bearian (talk) 05:13, 27 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) 03:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguine (brand)[edit]

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

I see no evidence online that the company meets the general notability guideline or the company-specific guideline. It's a little weird given that the company is almost 40 years old but that bit of data might have been copied from Versace like other bits of data I deleted earlier. And their website is a deadlink which is highly unusual nowadays. Pichpich (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a test edit. The editor seems to have had an interest in Janet Henderson and then in this article another person with the name of "Henderson". The page in question started from Versace, but I can't find any connection on Google that this is something real. Unscintillating (talk) 16:34, 26 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. only content is a copyright violation Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Saini[edit]

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

Winning a gold-medal in a non-reputed science olympiad is hardly notable.Was de-prodded by the article creator who is evidently the subject of the article. Winged Blades^Godric 15:04, 20 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. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has been stricken as WP:ANA per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on secondary school notability. As the RfC was closed while this discussion was in progress, I believe a WP:SOFTDELETE close is proper in this case. Kurykh (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BBS University of Technology and Skill Development, Khairpur[edit]

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

Originally proposed this article for PROD when first created but was contested with no reason provided. No evidence of notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL and WP:GNG. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 01:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 01:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Degree granting institution set up by a parliamentary act^[18] and functioning currently.^[19] Lourdes 06:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are mainly notices just saying that the school is functioning which doesn't make it pass NSCHOOL, there isnt very much coverage which indicates the subject is notable. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 12:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSCHOOL: "(But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.)"

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES: "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists."... Lourdes 16:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. As cited by Lourdes, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are usually kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." — Yash^talk stalk 08:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of sources would you suggest using to build this article? It's a new university so surely the sources should not be far off, no? "WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES" is currently the subject of an RfC so I don't find it particularly convincing on its own here. czar 02:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only arguments I see here are appeals to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. I always find these sorts of arguments circular; we should keep X because we always have usually kept X in the past. @Czar:, you mention an RfC, but I can't find it. Could you please provide a link to it? Based on my own searches, I'm not seeing the kind of sources we need to do anything other than verify that a bill was passed. There is a website for a school called BENAZIR BHUTTO SHAHEED UNIVERSITY LYARI, which has very little real information. So little, in fact, that I'm not even sure it's for the same school as the subject of this article. So, I'm not even sure this passes WP:V. If this school really does exist, there should be some third-party sources beyond routine reports of a bill being passed to create it. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC on secondary school notability czar 14:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith hello. There are two sources which might interest you.^[20]^[21] Thanks. Lourdes 02:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Good faith relisting
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 14:48, 20 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. joe decker ^talk 02:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oviaivo's polyhedra : annoviaivo[edit]

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

Entirely original research. The web links at the bottom of the page are User:Moroplogo's personal website. All Google results for "annoviaivo" or "oviaivo" appear to be created by him. The reference listed on the page (Bonnie Stewart's Adventures Among the Toroids) doesn't use the term either. Any non-original content here is redundant with toroidal polyhedron.

The user is more active on the French wikipedia: a corresponding article may exist there (or have been deleted there), but I don't understand enough French to tell.

(~~The user has also been adding web links to his 3d models of things to various pages, which seems a little spammy.~~ Nevermind, they're not his models.) Apocheir (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it certainly seems to be pure WP:OR, though I'd be pleased to learn otherwise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Repeating my comment from WP:ORN: There are no Google Scholar hits whatsoever for "annoviaivo". There is already a separate article for Toroidal polyhedron, and I see no published evidence that the family discussed in the article has been discussed elsewhere in the literature. It is certainly not discussed under the neologism "annoviaivo". The images can be used on other articles if necessary, but I do not think we lack for images in this area. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:41, 20 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) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Model Management[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPANY. Unable to locate any reliable sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nördic Nightfury 14:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable company. KGirlTrucker81^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 27 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. joe decker ^talk 02:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amanbek Esen Uulu[edit]

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

Non-notable ice hockey player. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable ice hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails ATHLETE. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played at an international level for his national team, which does pass ATHLETE. Delete: GuzzyG (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @L3X1: @GuzzyG: One of you says says it meets WP:Athlete, the other says no. I looked into that standard, and that got me to the Hockey requirements for notability: WP:NHOCKEY and WP:NHOCKEY/LA. I asked this question on the talk page of WP:NHOCKEY/LA. If either of you can quote the standard that clearly says yes or no--I don't know much about hockey, but interested in learning the standards we use for sports players, since there are so many articles on them... --David Tornheim (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: On the surface, there's enough discussion here to close this, but I'd really like to see an answer to User:David Tornheim's question before closing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Happy to do so. No, simply having played for a national team does not meet NHOCKEY and never has; even for teams from highly notable hockey nations such as Canada, such teams often play long exhibition schedules with greatly varying rosters, and the aging minor-leaguers and fringe amateurs playing for the "Canadian national team" in November tend to be traded out for NHL players in the spring. The applicable criterion of NHOCKEY only applies, and only ever has applied, to players for national teams competing at the Olympics, in the top pool of the World Championships, or in highly notable tournaments such as the Canada Cup. (We've never defined the language of the latter because the IIHF itself has frequently changed it, whether "top pool" or "First Division" or "Division A" or "Division A, A Group" or the like.) Kyrgyzstan has never competed in this pool, and no Kirghiz player is accorded presumptive notability. Ravenswing 22:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ravenswing --David Tornheim (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I changed my vote to delete. Every other sport uses the international team as a metric of international notability so i sloppily assumed Ice Hockey was the same. GuzzyG (talk) 02:57, 21 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. Kurykh (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nataliya Kuznetsova[edit]

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

Non-notable athletes. Some of the references include links to Paypal and Facebook. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 03:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. She might be notable. Searching Google for her I found many suggestions, including an interview, and, oh, an article from the Komsomolskaya Pravda, which might indicate notabillity. Sorry, guys, I learned Russian a long time ago, I know I could have done this better. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:17, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. 23:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC) --Ouro (blah blah) 23:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough substantial coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:19, 20 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. joe decker ^talk 02:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boulou Ebanda de B'béri[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a filmmaker and academic, written like a résumé rather than an encyclopedia article and referenced entirely to primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage about him shown at all. The potential for notability per WP:CREATIVE exists here, but this article as written isn't showing or sourcing it properly. There's also a probable conflict of interest, as the article was first created by "Boulou~enwiki". Note that earlier nomination was closed "no consensus". Bearcat (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is a CV, orphan, and apparently an autobio from a SPA acct whose edits service this article exclusively. Impact well below what we now consider even borderline for academics. Agricola44 (talk) 17:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete for the same reasons I already !voted to delete in the 2011 AfD: no evidence of academic impact and no evidence of newsworthiness as a filmmaker. And the festival du film pan africain that listed him as a judge and was cited as evidence of notability by two of the three keep !votes in 2011 is now a deadlink so, if anything, his case has only become weaker since then. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per above.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:22, 27 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Bowl[edit]

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

An eating contest which apparently attracts no interest outside of the local media. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that it has a lot of local coverage, but I noticed some of the local sources I looked at mentioned national coverage, so I kept looking. I found this from the New Jersey Courier-Post; admittedly NJ is close to PA. But this year's contest got press in Quad Cities, Iowa. And this from People magazine plus this from Fox Sports about the 2016 contest. Appears there is enough to meet WP:SIGCOV, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:COVERAGE for what has been an event conducted annually for 25 years. (Not that I'm a fan of eating contests, but this one looks like it has more than strictly local attention. Bread and circuses, don't you know.) Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:57, 27 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) 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urgent Action Fund-Africa[edit]

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

There does not seem to be any actual evidence for notability DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply a profile listing of which our policies clearly state are unacceptable without exceptions, all sources available are simply announcements and mentions, which isn't enough to satisfy our simplest standards; also, there's nothing for the essential improvements. SwisterTwister talk 21:50, 20 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. I have added the ((Cleanup AfD)) template to the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:41, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid Bisu[edit]

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

Very many refs for what appears to be a bit part actor. Many of the refs referer only to the film that she has acted in as a minor player. Refs that mention her by name all appear to be blogs or IMDB like sites. Wading through the morass of references, I could find nothing notable. The author persistenly removes notability tags which have been present for a while in the hope of elciting some evidence of notability. None has been forthcoming. Reads like a puff piece in anticipation of the Golden Globes later this month. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's evidence in articles such as The New York Times that mention her directly and her performance in the Academy Award Nominated for Best Foreign Film in 2017 "Toni Erdmann". What seems to be the problem? There's multiple sources quoted for anything written about her. I'm willing to add anything to it that you guys might find necessary and make any adjustments that you see fit as long as I'm told what these are specifically. Also, there's a lot of actors pages that need to be deleted for their lack of data and importance in the movie, before we ever reach her. Thank you! FactCheckker1515 (talk) 10:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Golden Globes already happened on January 8th. FactCheckker1515 (talk) 10:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is heavily a case of trying to coat rack the films success onto her. We need multiple films, and only one is really identified. Multiple significant roles in notable films can not be achieved by one significant role in one notable film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the article speaks of numerous other films such as "Outbound" where she has a supporting role, "The Portrait of the Fighter as a Young Man", both multiple nominated and award winning films, as well as "The Dark Prince" starring Jon Voight, again with her in a supporting role. Not to mention her morning show "Cafeaua de dimineata" on Romanian National television.
Is Wikipedia dedicated only to actors that have had leading roles? Maybe I'm missing something. FactCheckker1515 (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ENT. We don't "need multiple films"; we only need multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Toni Erdmann is clearly a notable film with Ingrid Bisu playing a significant role. Playing Bianca in Nimeni nu-i perfect is also significant. The article reads as puffery, but notability is a property of the subject and not of the current state of the article. Riceissa (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:ENT. Copyedits have been made for a bit of the puffery. Article could use further cleanup and expansion, not deletion per WP:ATD. Hmlarson (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep needs some serious clean-up, but definitely meets notability guidelines. TheWarOfArt (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Toni Erdmann is one of the best known films of 2016. While she was not the star of the film, her role was not minor. We have tons of articles about people who played smaller roles as Harry Potter's schoolmates in far less artistically ambitious films. --Bjerrebæk (talk) 04:21, 27 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 and rename to Outline of Bible-related topics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of the Bible[edit]

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

Written like an essay and all content is duplicated in articles such as Bible, Books of the Bible, Biblical canon, Authorship of the Bible etc DrStrauss talk 11:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an essay, but a list of topics more closely or loosely dealing with the Christian Bible. I suggest renaming to something like List of topics concerning the Bible (akin to say List of articles related to the Syrian Civil War) and giving it a little work. --Ouro (blah blah) 11:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as duplicative. I agree it's not an essay (apart from the introduction, which could be rewritten), but it is the sort of overview that the main Bible article should provide or at least link to. The page Books of the Bible does a decent job of the same overview. Mortee (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have to respectfully disagree with You, Mortee - this is merely a list for somebody who is looking for a quick link. The article You linked to provides more in-depth coverage and requires more sifting. It's a bit different. --Ouro (blah blah) 12:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough, I can see why a clean outline without commentary might be useful. Perhaps the real question is how people are going to find it in order to benefit from it. If the article is going to stay it ought to be linked to from the central articles. Otherwise the article on Books of the Bible or one of the existing categories probably covers this just as well. Mortee (talk) 13:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Agreed. It must be marked (named) clearly as a pure list and put in the relevant 'see also' sections and boxes at bottoms of pages. --Ouro (blah blah) 13:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please rename this outline and do not delete it.--Broter (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, and reorganize per the above conversation. How do List of Biblical Topics or Glossary of Judaeo-Christian Terms sound? —Non-Dropframe _talk 20:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and add a link to it in Template:Bible sidebar. I have no objection to the current name, but if renaming is necessary then I suggest ~~List of Bible-related topics~~. IMHO this is better than "Biblical topics", which might imply topics treated within the text of the Bible. See Category:Wikipedia outlines for other naming patterns within this category. – Fayenatic London 14:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my 'delete' vote after discussion. There are several valid options for renaming and/or re-organizing and I don't have a view on which is correct. Mortee (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Outline of Bible-related topics – keep in mind it is a member of the set of outlines at Portal:Contents/Outlines, and shares their standard format -- these comprise one of Wikipedia's content navigation systems. Therefore, it should retain "Outline" in the title, but as the Bible isn't just a subject, with the page's title unintendedly implying it is an outline of the book itself, the subject being outlined needs to be clarified. This can be done by renaming it to "Outline of Bible-related topics". That way, we know it is a structured list (an outline), providing links to articles about the Bible. The Transhumanist 19:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Pages named "List" can certainly be structured, but I do support this proposed name Outline of Bible-related topics as better than "List". – Fayenatic London 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this article was improperly moved to article space via copy and paste. The original draft is Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of the Bible. This page should be merged back together with that draft (combining the edit histories), and then moved properly. The Transhumanist 19:54, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Outline of Bible-related topics in the manner The Transhumanist suggests. That makes sense to me. (I also didn't know that page histories could be merged, so I've learned something today - always nice). Mortee (talk) 20:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(For further information, see Wikipedia:Moving a page#Fixing cut and paste moves) The Transhumanist 20:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to get behind Outline of Bible-related topics per The Transhumanist. Pinging Fayenatic london, Broter, and Ouro to further establish consensus. —Non-Dropframe _talk 20:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support the renaming of the outline.--Broter (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in some form. As others have noted, this is a valuable study guide, and part of a set at Portal:Contents/Outlines. It might be better under another name, but I have no preference.
(BTW, I think that the nominator DrStrauss was completely wrong to describe this as an essay. A bare list of topics is not an essay.) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:39, 25 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) 03:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Ruston[edit]

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a record producer, which just asserts that he exists and sources the fact to a directory entry, a glancing namecheck of his existence in a WP:BLOG entry about something else, and his commercial endorsement of a professional product. As always, a person in the music industry needs to be the subject of reliable source coverage about him in media, verifying one or more specific accomplishments that pass WP:NMUSIC, to get a Wikipedia article -- "it can be nominally verified that he exists" is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:47, 20 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) 03:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shake hand (film)[edit]

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

Shelved movie. The article was made before filming started (which incidentally never started). Fails WP:NYF Jupitus Smart 13:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, WP:TOOSOON. If what User:Jupitus Smart says is true, never will create notability unless failed Indian films generate litigation the way failed Hollywood ones do. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:27, 27 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) 03:51, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NABBA World Championships[edit]

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

Non-notable sports event. Unreferenced as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 17:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. DrStrauss talk 11:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 20 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) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marcquelle Ward[edit]

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

A search revealed several items on social networks, but no WP:RS coverage. Fails WP:BIO. Narky Blert (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 20 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) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslavia national junior handball team[edit]

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

Nothing online to establish notability. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Yugoslavia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Since the team appears to have disbanded at a time when the Internet was in its infancy, a simple Google search might not be the best way to find sources about this subject. Consider looking in research databases or other news archive services. Mz7 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's hard to find any evidence any of the national junior handball teams have notability, never mind one for a country already torn apart (literally). Nothing in any journal or news database. IF they generated any coverage at all, it was probably in house organs of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia and not available any longer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 27 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. joe decker ^talk 02:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tanis (musician)[edit]

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

Non-notable artist: sources are blogs and websites, no in-depth discussion, no record deal, one single and one EP--and a history of promotional editing, but that's by the by. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - bordering on unambiguous advertising, may well be a notable person but it's so unencyclopedic it's a WP:DYNAMITE case. DrStrauss talk 11:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 20 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) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Budhiparamaaya Neekkam[edit]

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

No proper sources to indicate that this movie is notable or even has begun filming. Fails WP:FILM Jupitus Smart 13:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, WP:TOOSOON. Unreleased film need to wait for an actual release to establish notability under either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:23, 27 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) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thamarassery to Thailand[edit]

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

Pure hoax. No reliable sources to indicate that this movie actually began shooting, or even was considered by the director. Jupitus Smart 13:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Ajf773 (talk) 09:24, 21 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) 03:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Museo de Aloe de Lanzarote[edit]

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

Promotional article for a company museum. A search for reliable sources produced only blogs and travel sites. Leschnei (talk) 12:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 12:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not finding any independent source that would establish WP:GNG or be used to clean up the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:14, 25 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. joe decker ^talk 02:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janét Aizenstros[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Friom the start, fails WP:ANYBIO: no significant awards (local ones from Guelph only), contributions, or biography elsewhere. Likewise, failing WP:AUTHOR, as she is neither widely cited, did not ceate a new concept, or received wide recognition. Ultimately fails WP:GNG as the only sources available are primarily self-sourced to her own works, which are anyway self-published through a vanity press. No WP:DEPTH or WP:PERSISTENCE of independent coverage in reiable, third-party sources. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Per nom.Winged Blades^Godric 14:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of indepth reliable sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert and Winged Blades. 2001:569:70DD:7500:39EA:19D8:DF90:EF4D (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:AUTHOR.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:27, 27 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) 03:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti occupy movement[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:SYNTH — JFG ^talk 12:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources establishing that there was an "anti-occupy movement", as opposed to there having been groups and individuals opposed to the occupy movement, which there certainly were. Also, article seems unnecessary, given that we have the other article created by the editor who created this page: Reactions to the 2014 Hong Kong protests.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:58, 20 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) 03:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shelley Rosen[edit]

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

None of the links are reliable secondary sources. Gift biz, Burghard group and Tabletop journal are blogs, KPLC and Kurman are press releases, vimeo, linkedin and corporate website are primary sources and the BBB interview is a puff piece. This has all the hallmarks of a promotional piece about someone who's job is marketing brands. fails WP:GNG Domdeparis (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While writing this article about Shelley Rosen, I believed she met the notability guidelines for Wikipedia, as she is a successful CEO who recently launched a new, innovative product. She is the moving force behind the success of Luxe Bloom, and has been written up sufficiently in the press to merit her own article. However, I admit that I am still in the learning stages of writing articles, and I mistakenly left out from my list of sources the article from the Chicago Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/chicago/news/2017/02/03/disney-teams-with-chicagos-luxe-bloom-for-beauty.html), where I first read about her, so I just added that source to the article. My inclination would be to leave the article up on Wikipedia as an example of a successful woman CEO, which I have read is a goal of Wikipedia, and continue adding to the article and looking for more legitimate sources to establish her notability. When I read about the criteria needed to nominate an article for deletion, it seems that, at least according to Wikipedia, an article is only nominated for deletion after a lot of research is done to prove that the article is really not Wiki-worthy. Please see this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion. I believe that level of vetting has not really happened here. A discussion on the Talk page on how to incorporate Shelley Rosen into Wikipedia would be a better course of action than an AfD discussion.Sparadigm (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the nominee I most certainly did follow the procedure and could find nothing note about the subject herself. The source that you cited is about her company and only mentions her in the last sentence as being the founder. Notability is not inherited, the company may be notable but the article is about its founder and the sources you have provided are not sufficient to prove her notability and nothing turned up during my "vetting" does either so a discussion on the talk page would have been futile IMHO. As I said this looks like a promo piece to promote the person's personal brand. I hope this clears up your questions. Domdeparis (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as promotional and rewrite in NPOV style. Deb (talk) 16:06, 23 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) 03:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Intrieri[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. A thorough search finds numerous references to a Mafia boss of the same name, but not this musician. Fails GNG and NMUSICIAN. DarjeelingTea (talk) 10:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNO refs! The search tools produce no results. Fails WP:N. Tapered (talk) 03:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong! he's from the 'Ndrangheta! (-; Tapered (talk) 04:00, 21 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. Overall consensus is for the article to be retained. However, some merge suggestions are also present herein, which can be further discussed on an article talk page if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addis Run[edit]

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

This page has no encyclopedic information to offer and is one among the 'Orphaned pages'.
TopCipher 09:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:55, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Hughes River (West Virginia). Of course, we don't delete articles for being orphaned -- an easily fixable problem in this case -- and the fact that we do have a reliable source on the stream's name origins means we have "information beyond statistics and coordinates" per WP:GEOLAND. But only barely more so a merge might be best. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hughes River (West Virginia). Not enough content to merit a separate article. It'd be better off on a list of a tributaries in the Hughes River article. Bitmapped (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Valid stub about a natural, named geographical feature and there is an additional source for etymology.– Gilliam (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Streams, rivers are considered to be notable. Wikipedia is a gazetter-thank you-RFD (talk) 15:13, 23 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 21:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ur So Gay[edit]

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

This song does not meet the criteria at WP:NSONGS. "A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article."

Despite the fact that this is not even a single, but a promo single, it fails to meet the notability guideline for either. The current article is too small and most of it is just fluff too. This song is simply not notable, and a gold certification or coverage from just once source doesn't make it so. I say "Merge" with One of the Boys (Katy Perry album). Shane Cyrus (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a Gold-selling song according to RIAA/Billboard and Topped the U.S. Dance Charts in 2008. Topping a chart and sellign half a million copies are extremely strong indicators of notability. Sergecross73 msg me 15:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being released as a single or not is irrelevant, it's about whether or not the song has received significant coverage in reliable sources. There is a review of the single in Billboard, however. In addition to Entertainment Weekly and Today.com mentions, there does seem to have been a fair amount of discussion on the song's lyrics and whether the song is homophobic or not. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The amount of sources are overwhelming. Article itself is poorly written and hasn't been touched in ages, however a quick google search shows sizeable media coverage. Strong keep. Giacobbe ^talk 04:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. Article is in poor shape, but it has enough independent coverage to warrant its own article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely covered enough in unaffiliated sources outside of album reviews to warrant an article. While the Today.com link that Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars is based on Katy's own comments (and thus isn't enough by itself as that's just self-promotion), the Billboard and Entertainmeny Weekly links are definitely enough to show this got enough attention for a page and there was controversy over its lyrics (even if minor compared to "I Kissed A Girl"). Charts, certifications, sales, and single release (or lack thereof) aren't definitive factors in whether songs warrant their own pages. As Aoba and Giacobbe indicated, the article needs work, but it certainly can be kept. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCyberjoel95 (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Emir Özen (talk) 17:31, 24 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. joe decker ^talk 02:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Healy (lacrosse)[edit]

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

Fails GNG and NCOLLATH. Doesn't appear we have an applicable lower standard for professional lacrosse. John from Idegon (talk) 09:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (((ec)) on the nom:) WP:ATH doesn't list lacrosse explicitly, but this seems to fail the general criteria for other league sports. Apparently only in US major league for one year—I can't find records of his actual playing/performance, given that the team's website is dead and is not in archive.org. Likewise, Lacrosse Scotland is an all-encompassing league/governing body, so we'd need WP:V of his actually appearing in a major-league or national-team game. DMacks (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for sportsmen or the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 20 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 21:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firelake[edit]

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

An unreferenced (if we discount one citation to a primary source) article which has been tagged for notability since 2008. Significant RS coverage not found.

PROD has been declined in the past, but having three songs on S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl computer game is not a sufficient claim of notability. All members are non-notable, as well as the music label the band is associated with. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am Arktor, one of the contributors on this article, and for the record, I could care less about this deletion (but not by much). Just for my personal knowledge, what does "PROD has been declined in the past" and "Dated/PROD" mean ? --Arktor (talk) 13:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Proposed deletion. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable references, search tools (including google search "Firelake band" produce no results. Fails WP:N. Tapered (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BAND. Searching finds no reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 17:55, 25 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) 03:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rocío Chaveste[edit]

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

To spammy. Most of the refs are self published. Not convinced she is notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article makes bold claims about the subjects importance, but does not back them up with the reliable sources that would be needed to back them up.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 20 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) 03:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Workpop[edit]

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

Clear business advertising and policy violations of WP:NOT and also WP:CORPDEPTH (heavily active by one user, Tdogsoccer8), which state sources must not be: "brief announcements", "simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed", "quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources", "passing mentions", "press releases or similar", "any material written by the organization, its members, or sources closely associated with it", "advertising and marketing materials by, about, or on behalf of the organization", "any material written or published by the organization", "other works in which the company, corporation, organization, or group talks about itself, whether published by or other", and that's a 2-section part of the applicable standards, which is then how we judge and base these articles. Next, a simple search here showed everything in clear PR announcements, whether published or republished, so none of it would actually improve the article to and above our non-negotiable standards and policies. There's no automatic inherited notability as these same policies state articles must be independently notable, and this article contains clear named mentions, which emphasize its PR bloating. The article also then contains clearly similar methodology accounts, which would violate our policy WP:Sockpuppetry, which goes in hand to WP:NOT. Of the current sources:

1-6 are all business announcements although in different publications, they all share the consistency
7 is a trivial story
8 is same as 1-6, this time in a blatantly PR journal
9 is a local newspaper's local story
10 is a "Companies to Watch" local-published story and so is 11
A common sign this was all clear PR was the fact every publication coincides with their business quarterly (September 2014 (6 times), October 2014 (these past 2 publishing within days of each other), March 2015, May 2015 and October 2015) ---- That wouldn't happen unless the company was involved since only they best motivate their own PR
Because AfC has immensely changed since 2014, we can not automatically consider anything from years ago automatically acceptable now (same can be said for AfDs closed years ago), especially given our newest WP:PAID policy, which states employees must state their involvements, something that was never used in this case or in earlier cases. SwisterTwister talk 06:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[redacted] Unscintillating (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you just said. Could you explain clearly whether you are stating that the nominator is somehow paranoid about PR on Wikipedia and over-nominates or whether you're saying the article itself is a blatent PR campaign. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 22:23, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- clearly promotional & unremarkable private company going about its business. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:48, 25 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. joe decker ^talk 02:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Rabinowitz[edit]

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

An advertorially-toned article on an unremarkable businessman. Significant RS coverage not found; no meaningful hits in Google Books and what comes up in news is mostly about the financial performance of Natera, where the subject is the CEO. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find sources that demonstrate WP:BIO can be met. SmartSE (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 22:28, 27 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) 03:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Falstaff Awards[edit]

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

Delete. Article about an award, cited only to its own primary source website about itself with no evidence of reliable source coverage shown in media. There's literally no substance here beyond the fact that this exists -- such as, I dunno, the name of even one person who's ever won it? As always, everything that exists is not automatically entitled to a Wikipedia article just because it has a website to prove that it exists; it has to be reliably sourceable as actually passing a notability criterion, but this isn't. Bearcat (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Possibly a notable award, but this article does not establish that yet. The supporters of this article should try to establish that this award is noted in the theatrical community, and is not just a self-promotional device for the website that sponsors it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be. I see mostly PR releases and some awardees announcing their wins. This and this are about the only independent notice I could find. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 22 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) 03:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GlobeStar Systems[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, unless the book actually has relevant content--it does not appear to have, based on the title. The article in the ptWP, though longer, appears to be a pure advertisement DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only sources available are either non-independent or passing mentions. No sign passes WP:GNG or WP:CORPDEPTH Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 27 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) 03:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Serchmaa Byamba[edit]

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

A search finds two brief mentions in RS events listings (one in 2007, one in 2015) that don't provide biographical detail. Other than that only reference is to the person's own company. Fails GNG. DarjeelingTea (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability under WP:GNG and I can't determine what SNG might even apply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:54, 27 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) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duceifixion[edit]

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

Clearly fails GNG, no reliable sources to speak of and the album did not chart on a noteworthy listing. In most cases, if an article can only simply state the album's existence, it is not notable. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's comment. Does not show signs of notability. Aoba47 (talk) 16:57, 26 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) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waad[edit]

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

This subject has not been mentioned in the media in 10 years. Existing sources simply repeat the same information that is in the page; there is no more than a single sentence of information about this subject anywhere. Fails WP:Notability. Denarivs (talk) 03:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That's way too meagre - a "reported name" with no additional info to be found does not an article make. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:19, 26 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) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clara Lieu[edit]

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

Adjunct professor, no assertion of notability that satisfies either GNG or WP:PROF, self-sourced. Contested speedy. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find anything either. Adam9007 (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source is an autobiographical blurd. No indication she comes anywhere near meeting inclusion criteria for either artists or academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. She doesn't meet the criteria for academics but she was "featured artist" in the Summer 2013 edition of Able Muse. I'm not in a position to judge the extent that that contributes to notability. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:28, 21 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) 03:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Finn[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Cannot find any non-routine sources (all I found was minor post draft and local coverage) that would be sufficient for WP:GNG. Might pass WP:NHOCKEY criterion #4 with the OHL captain of the year award, but that is not listed as one of the "automatics". Even if it was a "pass" on the NHOCKEY#4 does he meet GNG? (GNG is required, passing NHOCKEY does not automatically pass GNG, it just presumes it.) Yosemiter (talk) 02:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for hockey players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 20 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. I would consider this a suitable candidate for WP:SOFTDELETE. Regarding the weak keep !vote, Wikipedia is, rightly or wrongly, not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; if our policies result in systemic bias (and I am making no judgment on that), then they should be resolved in a community-wide discussion, not abrogated jury nullification-style in an AfD. Kurykh (talk) 04:02, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoroastrian Students' Association[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was nominated earlier and closed as no consensus. It's been quite a while since then and no sources have come forth. I am still unable to find any independent reliable sources about the organisation which can satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. I am not even able to verify any of the content and I recommend a WP:DEL7 deletion. -- Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I share the concerns raised by another editor during the first AfD; "Iran's Zoroastrian population is marginalized and it is not likely that it would receive generous attention from the IRNA or other government-blessed media sources. I would rather err on the side of caution, as per Adoil's acknowledgement of the systemic bias problems on this website, than delete because casual search engine queries don't pull up numerous sources." It appears to have adequate verification that it really exists, though the material is in Arabic. Montanabw^(talk) 10:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've spent some time using WayBackMachine to find archived pages of several references and added those to the article. Curiously ref #6 appears to be a copy of our article. The article sources suggest it is a small student organization. It organizes events. The events we know about are small, for example the yearly camp involves 38 students. With or without systemic bias small student organization are unlikely to have coverage that satisfies WP:ORGDEPTH or even WP:ORGIND. Often coverage is limited to student publications. I see nothing in the article that suggests this organization is an exception that would generate the necessary coverage if not for suppression by the government/people of Iran. My searches found little additional, just brief notices of meetings/events. Even if we give a pass to ORGDEPTH there is only minor coverage by independent sources which fails WP:ORGIND. Gab4gab (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:16, 20 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, with a careful eye toward maintaining neutrality and balance as required by WP:BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Schwartz[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as "attack page", but the accusation of cheating dates back to 06:02, 2 June 2016, and is the accusation true? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Contract bridge of this discussion. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Attack style page. Also almost all the sources are from bulletins not articles. The only other sources also creates other BLP problems such as WP:BLP1E given that the subject is only notable for this 1 event. CaseeArt ^Talk 05:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an "attack" page, and perfectly well sourced. In the bridge world, this is what he is most known for, though his previous achievements and titles (obtained before the accusations came to light) also make him notable. Wikipedia should not give some kind of whitewashed picture of reality where bad actions are not mentioned. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources only show notability for this event. There are 1000's players on on these bulletins, non of which have wikipedia articles. (Even if we would try to compile and create wikipedia articles on all the palyers, - I have no doubt that they would all be deleted). CaseeArt ^Talk 16:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. The bulk of the article is copied verbatim, Wikilinks and all, from Fisher and Schwartz cheating allegation. One article is sufficient. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Changed to weak keep Without the text of the scandal article transcluded into his biography, it looks like Schwartz may satisfy the notability guideline. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This just means that perhaps the information on the cheating scandal should be reduced in this article. As I've said, this bridge player would have been notable even without the scandal - removing his own bio article in favour of the cheating article would just give people the impression that he only became notable when he was accused of cheating, which is certainly not the case (there is plenty of information in the bio article that doesn't relate to the scandal, so I don't see how BIO1E can possibly apply). W. P. Uzer (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. There was a short, two-paragraph introduction (with three sources), a list of accomplishments, and a copy-and-paste of the other article (seven paragraphs with 14 sources). To me, that indicates either an intention to smear the subject or a complete imbalance (most likely both). — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - The article Cheating in bridge which already has this incident, and only includes a tiny minority percentage of all the cheaters, - none of the other people on the "wall of shame" of that article have 4 separate articles. In fact, almost none of them have any separate Wikipedia articles at all about them. CaseeArt ^Talk 16:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - I assume that's precisely because the others are not notable except for their cheating. Ron Schwartz was a world champion and very well known, top-ranking, international player, so he has notability independent of the cheating allegations; in fact it would be more of a smear not to let him have a bio article (which would imply he's just some guy who cheated at bridge). W. P. Uzer (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sources don't support that. Other than this case - he would would be like any other player which is again the BLP1 problem. But in either case this is an attack style page. CaseeArt ^Talk 20:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        The article cites sources that support that - this is certainly not a bridge player "like any other", but a very prominent one. And if the article is an "attack-style page" (I'm quite sure that wasn't actually the intention of the editors who created it) then the solution is not to delete it, but to change it to be more balanced, which can easily be done just by removing what I think was a transclusion of part of another article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I created the original page. Ron is an open world champion, a junior world champion, a 2 time winner of the Spingold, he won the Cavendish pairs. All of this is sourced. This is not WP:BIO1E.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I support W. P. Uzer's arguments. I see that the article's contents have already been blanked. Shouldn't that have waited for a decision to have been arrived at here, rather than jumping the gun? JH (talk page) 10:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fisher and Schwartz cheating allegation. The person is known only for this alleged scandal so the BIO1E would fit as noted above. Also of note is that "W. P. Uzer" has added the contents of the article to their user page, in a hidden comment; https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:W._P._Uzer&diff=765625016&oldid=564471396 ValarianB (talk) 14:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is that of note? I was thinking of reworking the article but didn't have time in the end; what's it got to do with anything? And why do you keep repeating the BIO1E thing, without addressing the points that have been made that show that he is certainly not notable only for the alleged scandal? W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a long time editor/contributor to Contract Bridge biographies. I have created over 150 biographies of players, more than anyone else. Ron Schwartz, and his long time Bridge partner, Lotan Fisher, won an open Bridge world championship in 2011 (151 teams entered). They also won the invitation-only Cavendish Pairs, the largest by far money event in Bridge. Each of those accomplishments by itself makes them notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry IMHO. Having both accomplishments is virtually automatic that they qualify for having a Wikipedia entry. They have also won two top American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) National (NABC) events. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spingold . They won the event in 2014 and 2015. Virtually all first and second place winners of that event since it started (1930) have Wikipedia entries. Ron and Lotan have won it twice, in consecutive years. Based on their Bridge credentials, both Ron and Lotan are fully deserving of Wikipedia entries.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both Ron and Lotan have been accused of cheating. There was a TV show made about the allegation. The Israeli Bridge Federation (IBF) found them guilty. The European Bridge League (EBL) found them guilty. Full disclosure: I was one of the experts called by EBL. The EBL found them guilty of cheating at a tournament in Croatia in 2014 based on video evidence. The American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) also found them guilty of cheating at an ACBL event (the Spingold in 2015), again based on video evidence. The cheating scandal has been covered in many news organizations, including The Daily Telegraph, Vanity Fair, NPR. The cheating scandal by itself is also worthy of a Wikipedia page. To answer an early question on if they are guilty, see http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/EBL_FS_Decision.pdf for the EBL ruling. See http://www.acbl.org/recent-disciplinary-decisions/ for the ACBL decision. In the ACBL decision, Ron and Lotan were stripped of their 2014 and 2015 Spingold wins. The Spingold is one of the oldest Bridge trophies. They are the only pair stripped of their titles in 80+ years.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Transclusion. At one point there was separate description of the cheating scandal on Ron's page, Lotan's page, as well as two other Contract Bridge related pages. It makes sense for there to be a single page that can be transcluded from other pages (e.g. Ron, Lotan, Cheating in Bridge) page. It does not make sense for the topic to be covered in 3 separate Wiki pages. I've posted my comments in separate line items, because each is a separate topic. To summarize: based on bridge achievements, Ron and Lotan are deserving of their own Wikipedia entries. In both cases, details of the cheating allegations/scandals should be transcluded from a separate page to avoid redundancy. The page on Ron Schwartz should be reinstated. Any similar attempt to remove the page on Lotan Fisher should be referred back to this discussion.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep - this is the third request from the same person for speedy deletion~~ In reviewing the history of the Ron Schwartz page, I realized that I actually created it. The original page is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ron_Schwartz&type=revision&diff=720979154&oldid=720977252 this shows his original listing was based on his accomplishments. I have added lots of notable bridge players - I am not likely to remember all I have created. There were two speedy deletion request from the same user on 10 June 2016. Both were denied.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't vote twice. Bolded part of 2nd comment struck. ValarianB (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, does anyone object if we restore the article as it was, but minus the transclusion of the cheating allegations page? The only reason it was blanked is because someone perceived it as an "attack", and without the transclusion it certainly would not be. (Of course, it would make the above discussion a bit confusing to anyone arriving at this discussion, but we can leave notes explaining what's happened.) W. P. Uzer (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Since there are no objections and I can't think why there would be, I'm going to do this. Hopefully this will help concentrate minds in this discussion on the actual issue. Hence please note that the version of the article referred to in this discussion (up to now) is not the current version but the one from before it was blanked (probably this). W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we should err on the side of caution to avoid unsupported attacks. Wikipedia is not meant to right great wrongs or to serve as a muck racker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand what you mean. The "attack" question can be put to rest easily enough by removing the long material about the cheating allegations (which is certainly not "unsupported"). The question to consider is whether, apart from those allegations, this person is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. It seems to me that, given his world champion status etc., he undoubtedly is. The "attack" thing is a red herring that we should no longer be discussing, at least not in the context of whether the article should be deleted. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same argument as before. Ignoring the cheating, Ron Schwartz has won 1 World Open Championship, 1 Youth World Championship, 1 European championship, 1 Cavendish and 2 Spingolds (2014, 2015). Each of those achievements is worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Having all these accomplishments is a no-brainer that he has a Wikipedia entry. As an aside, the "Cheating allegation" needs to be called "Cheating scandal". Schwartz and Fisher had hearings at the ACBL, EBL, and Israeli Bridge Federation. They all found them guilty. Again, I was the original author of the page, I've created 150+ Bridge biographies based on published criteria of what would make a bridge player worthy of a Wiki entry. Ron more than qualifies. Nicolas.hammond (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Cheating scandal. The Israeli Bridge Federation published its sentencing: http://main.bridge.co.il/uploads/files/sec/sec-decision-30-en.pdf about a week ago. Ron & Lotan are banned for 10 years from IBF, banned from every playing together at IBF events, banned from ever representing Israel in international competition.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Cheating. The European Bridge League (EBL) statement is http://www.eurobridge.org/Data/Sites/1/media/documents/EBL_FS_Decision.pdf Nicolas.hammond (talk) 17:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Re: Cheating. The American Contract Bridge League (ACBL) statement is http://www.acbl.org/recent-disciplinary-decisions/ Nicolas.hammond (talk) 17:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Winning the Spingold and other notable titles is quite an accomplishment in the bridge world, however they were earned. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 separate articles about the cheating. This one is an WP:ATTACK style because it only discusses one issue of the cheating. Also, very few winners have their own articles. CaseeArt ^Talk 04:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very few winners have their own articles? Have you looked at Spingold#Winners? Clarityfiend (talk) 12:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The player is Wiki notable on multiple fronts as stated in the foregoing commentaries. The fact he was later found guilty of cheating later does not obviate this. Newwhist (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are only about this one incident of cheating.- which creates WP:BLP1E Problem.CaseeArt ^Talk 04:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 3 documented incidents of cheating at different events. Ron has had more than one suspension from the Israeli Bridge Federation (IBF) because of cheating. See http://main.bridge.co.il/uploads/files/sec/sec-decision-30-en.pdf from IBF regarding prior IBF history including a suspension in 2005 for turning in a wrong score. The EBL and IBF held hearings on cheating in Croatia in 2014. Ron/Lotan were found guilty by EBL and IBF. There is video evidence. ACBL determined Ron/Lotan were cheating in the 2015 Spingold. Also, video evidence. See reference earlier. This is 3 separate cheating instances in 3 separate jurisdictions. All are documented by the appropriate authorities. As a World Champion, Ron is deserving of a Wiki entry. The cheating instances are a correct historical record of this person. Ron/Lotan are famous for Bridge, and infamous for cheating. The IBF announcement about his priors is a recent announcement. Nicolas.hammond (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For WP:BLP, Bulletins and Judgement records are primary, and they don't justify wikipedia articles. The published, reliable, secondary sources, - only cite this BLP individual for the one incident of cheating, which is WP:BLP1E.
In either case, this article is WP:ATTACK and there is no version to restore to.
Even according to those who justify the article, why do we need 4 separate duplicate articles about this BLP's cheating. Either articles should be entirely deleted - or at least some of the articles merged. CaseeArt ^Talk 20:44, 24 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 20:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

253 (number)[edit]

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

Delete. This page should be deleted because there is no reason for a page to be in Wikipedia that says 253 is the number following 252 and preceding 254, and a semiprime. This article does not add any real value to Wikipedia or Wikimedia as a whole and should not be covered as it is not a notable number. WikiProject Numbers says it is covering the following whole numbers; "Integers: Continuous from −1 to 200. Multiples of 100 from 300 to 900, then multiples of 1000 to 9000. Afterwards, only powers of 10 (from 1 up to 10^12, higher than that only if they have a standard word name and commonly used SI prefix) and numbers with some remarkable mathematical property." Only number pages that can have a good amount of meaningful content on them should be created. This is the same argument as to delete 254, and pages for all other numbers greater than 200 should be deleted unless they are perfect squares, primes, powers of a number, or have an important mathematical quality. This meets none of these criteria, and such should be deleted promptly.TheGoldenParadox (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable per notable number paradox. Denarivs (talk)
Meh Deletion is clearly inappropriate. I lean toward Keep, but Merge to a (combined) 250 would be acceptable. Neither option is appropriate for AfD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a figurate number, it is the ninth centered heptagonal number [22], the eighth centered enneagonal number [23], the seventh star number [24], the first nontrivial triangular number that is also centered heptagonal [25] and the first nontrivial triangular star number [26]. It is also very early on the list of numbers of 5-packed words, whatever those are [27], early on the list of third differences of eighth powers [28], and early on the list of numbers of 5-multiparking functions, whatever those are [29]. A 3x3x3 grid has exactly 253 lines through pairs of points [30]. I think that's enough somewhat-interesting and varied properties to pass WP:Notability (numbers). This is despite the fact that I disagree with the nominator in the other direction about moderate-sized primes being notable by themselves; there are lots of primes, so I don't think primality alone is enough for notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm convinced that the number has enough interesting properties. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Interesting properties. Clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)#Integers criterion 3: 253 is the smallest non-trivial triangular star number [31]. The comments above make a good case for passing the less rigorously defined criterion 1 too. Certes (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a good sourced page, and meets notably guidelines. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 18:07, 27 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. Even if there was a consensus, it would be keep. Kurykh (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Atherton[edit]

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

Propose deletion based on questionable notability. Self-promotional article contrary to our policies on what Wikipedia is not. Citobun (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- Hi Citobun, thanks for taking the time to review this article! I see your proposed reason for deletion is "Self-promotional article". I did the bulk of the editing and re-writing of the original to try and ensure it was an informative article and not merely some type of publicity. The subject does have a degree of notability and "wiki" is often the top search after her name on google, hence the article creation.

I have come across several articles that have made me question why they were approved and this one is being question. Some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doina_Ciobanu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Matthews

And some that are clearly just stubs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Thompson_(TV_personality)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kimberley_Garner

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark-Francis_Vandelli

If you have any advice on how to improve the article I would be most grateful. Many thanks! Sierpinski6 (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Sierpinski6:. I am proposing deletion because it is not clear that the subject meets our notability criteria. The other articles you listed are not relevant (please review WP:OTHERSTUFF) – we review articles on their individual merits. Wikipedia has a ton of articles that do not meet notability criteria. Many are created by people with undeclared conflicts of interest, which is against the Wikimedia Foundation terms of service, for promotional purposes, which is not what Wikipedia is for. I call this a promotional article because the only two people who have made substantial edits are single-purpose accounts, the other one being the suspiciously-named User:Entreprenuerbritainofficial. Citobun (talk) 16:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article written in PR-style language. No salvageable content. I'd like to direct @Sierpinski6: to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - problems with other articles don't excuse problems with this one. Please read WP:COI too. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

-
Thank you for those links. I understand why my references to other articles are not relevant to the issue of deleting/keeping this one. I would like to add that I have no direct association with the subject. On review, I do agree that the phrase "shot to the limelight" sounds like PR talk and will edit that to more neutral phrasing. Aside from that I do think the article is purely factual, with no emotive language. I again request that it be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sierpinski6 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your only edits have been to an article about this person, yet you claim to have no link to them? Would you care to explain how you came to write this article? It's not how a new editor typically behaves. Exemplo347 (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Exemplo347: , yes I have no direct link to this person. I wanted to get to grips with how editing works here and this article was suggested to me. I am really confused about the guidelines and how they seem to be selectively enforced. I could have chosen another minor public figure to make the same case. I continue to research and ask questions of more experienced users, and hope to be more active myself in the future, one I understand exactly what rules are followed and when. Sierpinski6 (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an indirect link? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347: Sorry, as you know I am new here, what do you mean by an indirect link? Sierpinski6 (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC) @Exemplo347: Ah, was being a little dense there! I suppose we do have an indirect link through "6 degrees of separation" but we do not actually know each other and I am in no way being implored or compensated to publish this article. Sierpinski6 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article could certainly be expanded but at this point is factual and has a range of references, including several interviews and profiles in mass media. The subject is clearly notable. I have absolutely no connection with the subject. Yaxu (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The references are a collection of PR, passing mentions, primary sources, interviews (which are not considered Independent sources), and articles about her company rather than the person herself. Lots of weak sources - not the Significant coverage in reliable, independent sources that the GNG demands. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the guideline that says interviews are not considered independent sources please? Yaxu (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry found it, will review my vote in the morning. Yaxu (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347:@Yaxu: Hope it's okay to jump in here. The guidelines state that ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it". What would be a good independent source here? I included major publications (e.g. Vogue, The Telegraph, Drapers),in fact none of the sources were produced by the subject. I understand interviews etc are all some kind of PR but I thought (perhaps ignorantly?) that choosing these sources provided a better case for notability than less well known sources. I know that the articles I mentioned previously have no bearing on the publication of this one but I am genuinely interested in how these guidelines are implemented. Perhaps there is a better place I could discuss this but it seems to be luck of the draw on who chooses to review things. I would understand if this was deleted with good reason but it rather seems to be a matter of opinion. I am very interested to see how it is resolved.Sierpinski6 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference to the Adobe blog Sierpinski6 (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Exemplo347:Sorry to bombard you! But you used the fact that most sources were "about her company rather than the person herself". Why should an article about a business person be about their personal life rather than their business and business philosophy? I am now well aware of the rule against citing other articles as an argument to keep or delete but perhaps you could browse the articles on businesspeople list if you consider this query.Sierpinski6 (talk) 07:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be addressing the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument again as it has been sufficiently addressed twice already. You should read Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guidelines to assist you. In the future, when you create an article, I'd suggest using the Article Creation wizard and then submitting your article for review before it is published. As for the Conflict of Interest concern, you still haven't addressed my question - how did you come to create this article? Please be very specific if you want to be treated with good faith. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Having read |the guidelines carefully I still vote Keep.~~ The subject has received a wide range of attention over a period of time, the interviews are conducted by independent journalists in widely distributed and generally respected publications and so count towards evidence of notability, and comments by interviewers count as secondary sources. Yaxu (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck out the duplicate keep vote. Citobun (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete overly promotional article with no useable content. When the article starts by mentioning being named the "5th most powerful" in some very small field clearly the person is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fashion industry is one of the largest in the world, not "some very small field", so I'm not sure that's a fair argument for deletion. Sierpinski6 (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The subject was not named "6th most powerful" in fashion, but in the sub-set digital fashion, and only by one publication.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - She seems utterly annoying but regrettably the articles cited in the Evening Standard and Daily Telegraph meet the requirements of WP:SECONDARY. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minimal media coverage that doesn't come close to meeting WP:notability. Denarivs (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References are made to independent and reliable sources.Politekid (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC) — Politekid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[reply]
Keep. Minor celebrity, but enough of a celebrity for our purposes. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just added another ref, but even without it, she passes GNG. JSFarman (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC per a review of available sources. Concerns about promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing the article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:52, 27 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. joe decker ^talk 02:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vic O[edit]

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

Not notable enough (see Talk:Vic O for details) Quasar G. (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query: on the talk page you said I do not believe that the subject of this article is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Vic O only fulfils the first criterion on criteria for musicians and ensembles but WP:MUSICBIO says that only one of the criteria has to be met for the subject to be presumed notable. Do you think on reflection that Vic O doesn't fulfil the crtierion, or should the page be deleted on some other grounds? Mortee (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources have questionable reliability, and a lot of the coverage is trivial because most of them only serve to mention a possible 'diss track' or a tweet that Vic O has made. The others are articles written solely because of the popularity of his song "After Party", which was shortlived. Also bear in mind that WP:MUSICBIO says Musicians or ensembles may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria. Vic O trends on social media and in tabloid magazines for a short amount of time every time he threatens to have 'beef' with another rapper, which is not worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia per WP:NOTNEWS (criterion 2). Quasar G. (talk) 11:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about 'presumed' versus 'may be'. I should have read that part more thoroughly rather than assuming based on some other guidelines. I don't have a view either way on Vic O right now, I just wanted to understand. Thanks for explaining. Mortee (talk) 11:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The sources seem questionable. Outside of that, also seems very self-promotional and nominal regarding notability. Cleanup might be possible, but not sure. As it is right now, it doesn't meet the grade. South Nashua (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject is not notable, article is clearly promotional page. Sources are poor quality and do not establish notability. Denarivs (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 20 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime Augusto Mayol[edit]

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

Non-notable person. No significant coverage... Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there appears to be plenty of Spanish-language sources. Lepricavark (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:23, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete non-notable --David Tornheim (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Ahnoneemoos. Examples: [32][33]. Google searches [34], [35]

I also looked on Spanish Wikipedia (with this search box) and found two things: He's mentioned at Singing for a Dream and Mi Pana Gillito --David Tornheim (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know much about this person but a quick search on Spanish sources shows that he was a host of a popular TV show in Puerto Rico in addition to have won some pageant competition. Furthermore, it seems there are enough sources in Spanish to establish his notability. Just need to Google Search using the flag 'Jaime Mayol site:elnuevodia.com', 'Jaime Mayol site:primerahora.com', and so forth. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should reference the sources found by David Tornheim and Ahnoneemoos.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs to be worked on and expanded, but the subject is notable enough to be mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Let's face it, a person does not have to be internationally known to be notable nor do the sources have to be in English to be reliable. I mean, most people do not even know who the greatest RV host or star in Kenya is, but that does not mean that he/she is not notable.

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. Kurykh (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reprezent[edit]

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

Non notable radio station, No evidence of notability, Fails RADIO & GNG (Also the article was more or less copied from [36] so better off blown up and rewritten too), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 19:34, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A TNT may be merited, but there is a demonstration of potential notability: a five-year license from Ofcom and transmitting on DAB to London. Someone more knowledgeable on British radio may be helpful here, but I do smell the potential for a keep with rewrite. Raymie (t • c) 03:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above the article was more or less copied from that one source which more or less makes this a copyvio anyway, Bizarrely I got no results for the station yesterday and yet today I get loads! so the station looks to be notable however the copyvio is my big concern - I could end this AFD and tag it with DB-copyvio but I'm hoping someone more knowledgable here can save this with a rewrite. –Davey2010^Talk 13:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 00:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article isn't notable and there doesn't seem to be enough secondary sources to establish a proper article. Denarivs (talk) 03:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Licenced broadcast stations tend to be treated as notable. Station is reasonably well known within Community Radio sector. However current state of article is poor, needs improvement rather than deletion. Philedmondsuk (talk) 21:14, 24 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 relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actran[edit]

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

Self-promotion; propaganda; advertising; marketing. Jadc297 (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm a bit bothered by the fact that the nominator's only contributions to the English Wikipedia have been to nominate this article for deletion, and [they] apparently forgot to notify any of the contributors to the article that it was nominated for deletion. Neil916 (Talk) 07:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of references and significant coverage in independent sources. Passes WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:45, 27 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 20:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Japan and Malaysia tour[edit]

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

This is not a notable tour, and also there are not many sources to conduct the article either. Beyoncetan (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very notable duo, so the information is encyclopedic. So the other option is to merge and redirect to TLC (group), but that article is long enough already and their other tours have their own articles. Andrewa (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrewa: The article is now in a very poor condition since it has no source to be further expanded. But redirecting it to TLC (group) is quite a solution. Beyoncetan (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article does give a source at http://www.billboard-live.com/pg/shop/show/index.php?mode=detail1&event=7337&shop=1 which is in Japanese and a primary source but quite legitimate. The article does need expansion and more sources, and is flagged as needing more sources and that's fair enough. It should also be flagged as a stub IMO but it's a good one and should eventually grow.

But the older notability flag seems to me to be highly questionable. It is most improbable that this tour was not covered in reliable secondary sources. It's just that we haven't found them yet, probably because there may be none in English, and it may be some time before we do, particularly as there are no corresponding articles in other language Wikipedias. None of this is unusual for articles on tours, albums, bands etc relating primarily to non-English-speaking areas. English Wikipedia seeks to cover all topics, not just ones relating to English-speaking areas.

Merge and redirect doesn't seem a good idea to to me, for reasons already given. But preferable to deletion, for which there is absolutely no case IMO. And the hit-and-run tag questioning notability should be removed from the article. Andrewa (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 20 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. See WP:NPASR. Kurykh (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wayanad Muslim Orphanage[edit]

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

For a nearly 50 year old organization this is surprisingly failing WP:GNG miserably. I could not locate any references in WP:RS. Fails WP:NORG as well. And creator's olny contributions have been to edit this page; possible WP:COI trying to WP:PROMOTE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 15:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I found repeated coverage in the Hindu including coverage of the 40th anniversary in google news and pro quest. WP:NORG suggests that a (local or national) organization with in depth national (or global) coverage is notable. Also, coverage seems to meet those suggested by GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think WP:SIGCOV is still met with the references you have added to the article. For example, the tehelka reference mentions WMO in just one line on how they also exhibit malpractices in gaining funds; which btw is skipped in the article and is used just to source the "motto"!! One hindu ref doesn't have weblink. The Handbook of Universities, Volume 1 ref mentions that a certain college exists but in no remotest sense even mentions it is run by this WMO. The 53 weddings ref is just trivial. And TwoCircles.net is pro-Islamic source and can not be used to establish notability. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point regarding the donation fraud issue. I added a section about that, and made a few more edits. I'm not sure what you mean in regards to your criticisms of the other sources. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Per nom.Winged Blades^Godric 04:45, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:00, 20 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 20:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Deakins[edit]

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

Fictional character with no independent sources; the sources are the show's own webpage and Wikipedia. There appears to be no "List of characters" to merge to. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to List of Law & Order: Criminal Intent characters. Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:59, 20 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) 04:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Le Page[edit]

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

I'm finding nothing. Not even really sure where this Sheriar Press outlet is supposed to be that apparently most of his publications are supposed to be from. TimothyJosephWood 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very big delete. I'm not sure what this guy actually does or did to make him notable. It seems like he went to India, found himself, then returned to Australia to start a company that does something not explained int he article? References deeply sketchy. I did find a video on Youtube where he talks incoherently about something or other in front of a pile of his badly designed self-published books.198.58.162.176 (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Le Page is one of the main disciples of Meher Baba, has worked on books and films about him, was one of the main people who set-up and ran Avatar's Abode, and the page itself has many sources and references. This is a notable and important page (literally) in Wikipedia's Meher Baba collection. Here is a link to get to the Sheriar Foundation which the nominator had questions about. The nominator asked where the Sheriar Press outlet is, it's in South Carolina. There are many youtube entries for Le Page, possibly if 198.58.162.176 watched more they'd find something of value. Randy Kryn 15:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So pretty much what I expected: Sheriar is an organization specifically set up to put out information about Baba, making them basically self-published, and not qualifying toward notability. YouTube searches are also essentially meaningless for the purposes of notability. TimothyJosephWood 16:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be self-published if Meher Baba himself published the books and information and they weren't republished elsewhere. This seems like a legitimate publisher who publishes books about an important topic, Meher Baba, and Le Page's works are important to the historical record about the subject. I linked to the youtube page because the editor above mentioned watching one of the videos (probably watched only a few minutes, if that, looking at posting history) and based part of his comment on his perceived quality of the speaker. Randy Kryn 16:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

legitimate publisher who publishes books about an important topic No, it is an organization set up to do nothing but promoting Baba. This disqualifies it as a non-independent source, and renders its publication probably no more reliable than official press releases. TimothyJosephWood 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not about Meher Baba, who is a very notable person, but about an author who writes books about Meher Baba. His books are published because of his writing talent and his knowledge of the subject, and he seems an able and capable chronicler of history and the life of Meher Baba. This is far from a page which should be deleted, and instead of harming Wikipedia's collection of Meher Baba articles the page further expands and enhances the encyclopedia. Randy Kryn 21:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If he is such a talented writer, then you should have no problem finding reliable secondary and independent sources talking about him. TimothyJosephWood 21:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn, have a look at WP:RS where reliable sources are explained. Youtube is about as unreliable as they come.198.58.162.176 (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I explain above, the only reason I even mentioned youtube was because you used your experience of watching and not understanding a portion of a video as one of your reasons for wanting to delete the page. Randy Kryn 11:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "The page is not about Meher Baba, who is a very notable person", really?, nearly all of the references at the Baba article and most of the books listed in Baba's reference section are written by either Baba himself or disciples/followers of Baba. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bizarre article that doesn't establish notability at all, or even explain what this guy has done. References are all very sketchy self-published sources and aren't reliable for sourcing facts. Denarivs (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It explains exactly what he's done. His work on the life of Meher Baba, published by publishing houses interested in the subject, are not self-published. What parts do you define as WP:BIZARRE? Randy Kryn 12:27, 20 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 by nominator. More references have been found since the creation of this AfD. It is simply wasting time by leaving it up, as it's been relisted twice. (non-admin closure) Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-imperialism solidarity day[edit]

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

Does not prove notability. ~~No indication this is a real event,~~ googling brings up very little results, with the only result under the news option being an article from the "dailyobserverbd". Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment Nomination seems to contradict itself, saying "No indication this is a real event" and yet citing a news story, in one of Bangladesh's dozen or so English-language newspapers, that covers the observance of "the 44th Anti-Imperialism Solidarity day". Examples of coverage in other years and newspapers are: [37][38][39]. There seems little doubt that the event is "real" as opposed to something from fiction, fake news, or a hoax. Whether it should be covered in a stand alone article, or is no more notable than "National Frozen Yogurt Day" is another question. --Worldbruce (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies for the contradiction, that was my mistake. It's a real event but notability is not obvious. -- Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

tentative keep given that this article in brand new, and the three sources suggest that it might be a significant day. I recommend we put the tag "no sources". Give those who created a chance to improve it and add the above or any other better sources, and editors a chance to decide whether the above sources are significant or not. Then revisit in 3-6 months to see if it is worth saving. I have seen some articles with no sources that are, in fact, very significant. --David Tornheim (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a new nearly unsourced article making grand claims about a 44-year-old holiday. Kudos to User:Worldbruce for finding 3 more sources, it's more than I could do. (It may be that the holiday has gone under different names) However, all we have is a article lacking sources that reads like an WP:NOT#ESSAY and WP:PROMO for a recurring (not clear that it's been held every year) political demonstration. No evidence of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep I also believe that this article may be notable. However, I sincerely doubt that it will ever be sourced by anyone. I wish that Wikipedia would set a time limit on unsourced articles (maybe a year) that would automatically bring it up for deletion if nothing is done. The current system only allows crappy articles to stay posted forever. Rogermx (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Sources added and improved.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Change Tentative Keep to Keep - Great job on rehabbing this article and the sources. Glad to be proven wrong by some good editors. Rogermx (talk) 23:29, 20 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) 07:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Ćertić[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Certic

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Stefan Certic

Articles for deletion/Stefan Ćertić

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

no evidence for actual notability as a businessman or inventor. DGG ( talk ) 10:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added Crunchbase references to backup the business section. Service also provides a net worth calculation but for registered users only and therefore can't be referenced. Should i remove? --Edwmgs (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You will also need to perform internet search by using C instead of Ć. Most of the work submitted is under Certic. - Therefore alternate name has been added. --Edwmgs (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:53, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added references towards acquisition of AlterVibes Radio(Undisclosed Amount) and 2M Investment in GlobalCell.--Edwmgs (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC) Referencing Cites from American Journal of Engineering Research to improve Academic Works section.--Edwmgs (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessperson without enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear business advertising. SwisterTwister talk 21:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Did my best with translation and referencing, i don't see how it could be business advertising. What business is exactly advertised? Got an impression there is a vote without reading whole article. It covers both business, music and published works, not business only. Please at least check the references from the article before voting. If something ends up in scientific journal it should add some notability. If there is an music album with good critics, it add some notability no matter what type of genre it is. If something is not good enough, let's vote after careful check, not just copy-paste vote. Those are hours someone put into translation. I recently wanted to start fixing this page that stays with single source from 2015 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogoljub_Kari%C4%87 What is my interest in fixing it. So it get's removed tomorrow as "clear business advert"? --Edwmgs (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offer - Instead of deleting article, help me fix it by providing suggestions. In return, also suggest 5 more articles about notable IT persons you would like translated from Russian, Croatian, Serbian or Bosnian, and i'll get it done. Let's stop "deletionism" Fair enough? :) Should you decide to delete, at least merge call forwarding exploit part with other article. That was the first ever call forwarding without user consent. --Edwmgs (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as requested, I took another look at the article. Reading several times and checking each reference, I am even more thoroughly convinced that the subject is not notable. The only evidence for him founding a political party is the party's own web site--I can find no information that the party is notable, and I've listed it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srpska Levica. There is similarly no evidence that his published work is influential: using Google Scholar, his ArXiv paper has been cited only 5 times, and his other work not at all. The article is not advertising, but it is somewhat promotional, emphasizing minor nonI also still consider it a promotional CV, and I think our rule WP:NOTCV is applicable. We use "promotional" to mean anything which has the effect of promoting or advancing someone or something, and that well describes an articles devoted to listing the various separately non-notable activities of the subject. 3 separate activities, each non-notable, add up to non-notable. Not everyone who published a scientific article is notable--they have to produce many articles, some of which are widely cited. Anf, as the article itself says, his musical activities are a hobby, not a profession. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG. I can't defend the politics part, that's not an area close to me. Not an expert in music as well. Can't discuss those two sections are notable or not. Business, to some extent since the data is easy to find. Your fact of only 5 cites stands, i did not found other published works except the one from the reference. My starting point for the article is open source SS7 stack that is used in company i work for (Dialogic). What is known fact within telco industry, is that SS7 stack in question has been developed for the purpose of demonstrating call forwarding exploit (possibly the most notable thing). That was my starting point and only connection with the subject. I am not going to misinterpret any criticism improperly, criticism is good thing, and your points stand still. On the other hand, if we are about to delete every article that has only 5 cites, i'm sure we would reduce wikipedia by 30%. My idea was not to create CV alike article, translation is mostly to blame for that, and it's my bad if it looks like that. Instead my idea was to extend the exploit part by adding "a bit hard to find" very closed topics technical informations related to SS7 exploits and call forwarding in question. My starting point might be bad. Anyhow, your research was obviously deep and I do respect your opinion and extensive answer. Joke part: The only thing that worries me, is that by this tempo, Wiki is going to end up with Only Albert Einstein on the front page, and rest is going to be deleted. --Edwmgs (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, that's the reason i have joined biography portal project and asked for assessment in both Music, Politics and Science in order to try to get opinions from persons from the field. (Sorry for defending an article so much, but it's my first - therefore my baby :)--Edwmgs (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Edwmgs (talk) 05:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit upon the problem in technological articles--we need actual references, and they are sometimes extremely difficult to find. Ify ou can find published sources on, for example, the SS7 stack stack, try to write an article.

But I must not have been clear about the 5 citations. It is not saying that the article is inadequate because it has only 5 sources. As you observe, many WP articles have fewer , and there is in fact no minimum number, as long as what there is there adequately shows notability . (Notability for WP purposes is a very tricky concept--it's based upon WP:NOT as explained at WP:N and its subpages, but the effective meaning can only be understood from the actual decisions at AFD). Rather, it is saying that a published article in the scientific literature that has only been cited 5 times, is not an indication that it is even importance. To meet the WP:PROF standard in most fields, we usually need at least one paper with 100 citations or close to it; maybe half that in mathematics. DGG ( talk ) 05:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DGG You are not the one that worries me :) You are reasonable man who think 10 times prior to forming an opinion. I can find good references and make good article out of this (just check how it looked like when i started), however i am trying to keep it alive, instead of spending time working to find notable facts published in local papers etc. That's why i suggest "Improve notability" tag or similar, so it can give me more time to make it high quality. I do agree with you, it's far from perfect. But still there are many poor articles that needs much more addressing that could be focus of deletion and let me try to make something. If you checkout the way i work - i am not building any promotion or CV for anyone, instead i am finding research papers and journals.--Edwmgs (talk) 05:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, i did started improving SS7 and Sigtran articles on Wiki, while working on this one as well. But if someone delete A while i work on B and i need A for C because of B...you got my point. --Edwmgs (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if make mistakes in terminology, i did learn a ton of documentation before writing on WP, but still multitasking, learning terminology + improve articles + defend articles by finding WP acceptable facts. I know you were talking about research citations not article refs. Sorry for the confusion. As someone working in the field of IT (telecom), i know if someone is notable or not. Just like you do in your area. However, to present that to you or reader, i need to find the material. Currently looking for implementation of the guy code in commercial software. But anyhow, you are the one who have authority here, and an option to close this with Delete page or put Improve tag or Anything else. By having a discussion i assume you would like to know more and that's the reason i write here. But in personal opinion, it would be far more productive to let me do that through the articles - not here. From my point of view - if company i work for uses the code - yes it's notable. (we are in top 5 vendors). The field of this technology field is very tricky (it really is), each vendor has it's own specifications and protocols, and small number of people knows how things actually works. This is one of fields where WP lack the sources, and unlike other technologies such as programming for example (where you can even learn to write code from WP), Telecom Engineer can learn very little. Now you are suggesting me to start an article about M3UA protocol for example - and then have professional football player (who happens to be an editor) nominate for deletion as not notable. I would spend whole day just defending articles. --Edwmgs (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Started programming section, and added references towards CPAN, SS7 Server / Client Implementation And most important free of charge e164enum database. --Edwmgs (talk) 08:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC) Referenced Educause membership and a University College of Engineering research director position obtained through it. --Edwmgs (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG or another administrator viewing this, Would you be so kind to reconsider in the new light of fact that the person is appointed at the university as an research director, and an representative within Educause organization. (apart of other works added). I feel like we should close this discussion and move forward, whatever decision is. Personally, I think that latest additions should be enough to pass GNG. Thanks. --Edwmgs (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the president of a university is notable, and often the the Dean of ats medical or law school. we've never extended this to lower administrative positions, such as Director of Research. or representative to an outside organization. That's usually the responsibility to mid level administrators. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I give up. You decided something should not be on Wiki, and even if i find that someone was the president, i feel like getting response "Oh, but president is just a figure, it needs to be a prime minister to be notable". By comparing tons of notable articles, i found this one good enough to pass. The overall article quality by random sample suggest this one should at lest be keep with potential improve tag. I Did my best, sorry. The inclusionist put an excellent list or arguments why this any many other articles should not be deleted: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism#Arguments_against_deletion and many of them applies here. I am not going to go against common sense.--Edwmgs (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Do you have some constructive proposal? What we are going to do.--Edwmgs (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry Edwmgs, I still don't find a convincing case of WP:N, and you can't make it up even by doing your best and beyond it. We have an often-seen case of "barrel-scraping" for sources that touch on the subject in slightest detail, and all of the sources in the article do just that – mention the subject's statements related to the minor software company he works for, writing open-access books, or his engagement as a guitarist in a minor band and an even more minor political party. Such sources may be used for verifying some details, but contribute very little to assessment of his notability. No detailed coverage in mainstream press for any of the subject's fields of interest → no article. No such user (talk) 12:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that's exactly problem with Wikipedia. The company he built up from scratch, and lead into acquisition of TeleSign now process almost 90% of Google, Twitter, LinkedIN and similar 2FA Verifications. The problem is not the notability, it's the fact that there is not enough media coverage. It's not a minor company, it's the company with 1k+ employees. (and it does not have Wiki Page as well). As a result, we have a mess in Telecom industry today. There is no reliable soure of informations. Anyhow, let's delete. With current WP policies in place there is no way to establish notability for almost anything, unless it's Lady Gaga. Let's delete and close the agony. Without this article i would never be able to connect the dots and establish notability for multiple Major companies that were focused on business, not the PR. Don't get me wrong, it's nothing personal, i can see all your posts are in good faith, unfortunately that's the way things work here, and i'll need to leave. If anyone checked carefully via google various sources of informations, it will help him make a clear picture. Unfortunately no-one bothers to do that, WP relies on few basic scripts that will perform very strict search revealing nothing. And what is worst, editor needs to spend ton of the time defending an article instead of building new onces that are heavy connected to the one in question. By latter research i found that article already existed, passed the assessment and was present for years with much less sources in very poor form. The whole trouble was created by editor who removed most significant part "just like that without even checking", and the other frustrated editor who was opposing. I was working on getting permission within my company to publicity announce that his code is used to build up the platform. That would make article notable, but also help me build another page about the Open Source SS7 software, that are unfortunately only two, one being developed by this guy. Anyhow, further explanation would be waste of your time. (I guess you are all busy deleting articles as soon as they get started). This is my last edit prior to account closure and i am also changing my vote to Delete. WP is in serious trouble, just because of one thing: A person who never played football is allowed to cast a vote on player quality. Hopefully, things will gets better one day, until then all the best. I will be leaving now closing my account as soon as SPI confirms i have been under false accusation. --Edwmgs (talk) 12:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwmgs: If I read previous AfD correctly, Stefan Ćertić himself requested deletion of his article. We can ignore such demand only when person in question is highly notable, which is not the case there. Then why keep this article? Pavlor (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PavlorAs far as I have read he requested that due to an ongoing debate and the deletion tag, describing that it will hurt the reputation since he was in campaign. Why to keep? - Because I need the article to connect work with SS7 projects articles that are about to get created and finally make a list of SS7 connectivity softwares, vendors and known vulnerabilities. I can't do that if someone goes after me and delete everything i do. If you are willing to keep the article, I would be happy to post a message on his user page to confirm if he want it deleted or not. (Which i Doubt since there is both Serbian and Russian version are present without such request). If he confirms deletion, then I'm absolutely fine and not going to oppose such decision. In mine opinion we are talking about notable person here, and I am sure that's the opinion within telecommunication security experts. The problem is, this debate is not an argument exchange between topic expects. Anyway, I'll ask on user page. --Edwmgs (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is for sure, I am not notable enough to produce months of arguing. In regards to Edwmgs question on my user page - I try to keep my website up to date and that's the primary source you should use to verify information obtained from other sources. I can't identify fake statements in the article. Would I change anything - I am not going to respond as that would be a conflict of interest. In regards to Pavlor question, i just don't like too much arguing. The reason i asked previous page to be deleted was clear - i was starting a political party and the deletion discussion was hurting my credibility within internal elections. At the time, someone decided to remove half of my biography leaving just the marginal work. I believed that started "the fight". I don't see any problems with the current page in terms of validity, but i am not going to express any specific opinion in regards to those facts in order not to create a conflict of interest. It's up for your decision if you would like to keep the page or not, as long as there's no vandalism. Anyhow, it would be stupid that i vote here. First, it's about me, and second i would always stand against deletionism unless the topic is marginal, spam or fraudulent. StefanCertic (talk) 19:36, 24 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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 12:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panoply Media[edit]

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

Subject has no independent sources. Once you strip away Slate (the new owners of Panoply) and you take away the interviews of Panoply personnel you have nothing left. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article is a stub. Deletion is the easy route. Turning resources like [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], or [53] into an encylopedic article means doing the harder work of being a good editor. Options and their likely outcomes as I see them:

Delete this article now, and it will be recreated as Panoply media grows.
Turn it into a redirect page to Slate Magazine and when someone wants to turn Panoply Media unto a proper article, the RD page will serve as a placeholder.
Do the work of a good Wikipedia editor and turn this into a fully flushed out article right now.

The outcome will be the same either way. It's all a matter of who does the work and when. Morganfitzp (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I created the page as a redirect to Slate Magazine, which was option 2 from above. Other editors may have jumped the gun in in going for option 3. That said, actual deletion seems silly. Morganfitzp (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or merge to Slate (magazine)#Podcasts, although the majority of Panoply podcasts are produced by other companies. Regarding sources, only two sources are from Slate, the rest are independent. For what it's worth, I'm the author of this article. --Hirsutism (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in light of Hirsutism's work on it from the past week in moving it from stub-class to start-class. Given that Panoply's structure as a Slate-run company in partnership with many notable media outlets (Buzzfeed, MTV, WSJ) I think it's worthy of more than just a merge. Morganfitzp (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but now another editor has nixed half that content, citing Wikipedia:WTAF. Morganfitzp (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of reliable sources (NYT, Rueters, Bloomberg, Financial Times) and just because something needs work, it doesn't mean you should delete it. The United States was a stub once. Every article starts out as a stub, and if they were deleted just because someone couldn't spend the time to expand them there would be next to nothing on Wikipedia. Delete articles because they are not notable, not because they need work. Eddie891 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because Slate owns Panoply, it does not mean that they are no longer reliable. While they are likely to be biased, Slate can, in my opinion still be used to source material that is not able to be argued about, such as when Panoply acquired the Audiometric software platform and Slate reported on it. Eddie891 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability isn't the issue; notability is. No one has provided sources that make a case for general notability just a bunch of mere mentions. I don't agree with your apparent inclusionism. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I see your point, could you please tell me how articles with titles like "Slate's Panoply platform is serious about podcasts" (Mashable) "Slate and Malcolm Gladwell Aim to Become the Next Serial: The Slate Group's podcasting network, Panoply, is hoping its new show, Revisionist History, will be a huge hit" (Bloomberg) "Panoply launches advertising technology for podcasts" (Financial Times) and "Guide to Podcasting" (Tow Center for digital journalism) (this article "explores the myriad ways these philosophies play out in four case studies: PRX’s Reveal, Gimlet Media, BuzzFeed, and Panoply.") are "mere mentions" Eddie891 (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag on an article can be interpreted in many ways. One inference is that the tag is saying, "This article sucks and is therefore unworthy," and another inference has the tag saying, "You are invited to improve this article." I lean toward the latter, hoping that editors who dutifully/habitually tag articles are saying, "I think this article could be improved and I defer to someone with expertise on this subject to do so," and not, "This article could be improved, but I'm just too lazy to actually do it." In short, assume good faith. Morganfitzp (talk) 04:28, 21 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Low Playground[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG. The slight coverage on the topic is both local and WP:ROUTINE. The original author is reticent against a merge so deletion is the next step. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Bensonhurst or Seth Low. Best not to leave redlinks as clickbait for article re-creation. Montanabw^(talk) 07:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to this playground than its namesake, that's why I oppose having it merged with the entry on Seth Low. My entry on Seth Low Playground offers more on its history than the official Parks web page on it.. Queens Historian^(talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Note, this appears to be a significant park, being 5 acres (2.0 ha) in Brooklyn where such spaces are not readily available (think: Ebbets Field). Note also that the park seems a bit misnamed, as merely a "playground", but indeed per the New York City website given in an external link in the article (which should be cited directly as a reference within the article, too), the entire park/playground and square are in fact named "Seth Low Playground". There are several sources already in the article, and it does not bother me that the coverage is mostly or all local sources (though using NYC source makes it a bit higher level than strictly local). Note NYC level sources are on the scale of a nation; this is not podunk Iowa. It is more significant as a geographical place than, say Crow Creek Water Ditch, to pick on a place having a name in Montana. :) It does not make sense to merge this to an article on the namesake person, as there is substantial information about the park in the article. Also it is too much material to merge into Bensonhurst. I like that the article has some relatively ancient history about the location, i.e. there being a pond then obliteration in 1896 by a dump. Editor Queens Historian is doing a good job with this. --do ncr am 00:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I expanded a reference and added one or two references to the article. Note that the Brooklyn Eagle "was the most popular afternoon paper (with the largest daily circulation in the nation) in the United States" at one time, presumably pretty much the time of the 1940s articles listed in the further reading section of the article. I get lots of hits in the Google news search field above, and I haven't tried other name variations and Google scholar and so on. I just think this is actually pretty signficant; that reasoning applied against local small playgrounds in small towns doesn't apply here. --do ncr am 00:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject isn't notable and the minimal media coverage is meager. There's no attempt to establish the park's notability or worthiness for an encyclopedia. Denarivs (talk) 03:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can't think of a good reason to deprive readers of interesting sourced factual information about a municipal park. A book search on "Seth Low Park" shows numerous Brooklyn-related books that mention the park - someone might want to know more about it. Not to mention, "Highlighted in his upcoming book Hidden Waters of New York City: A History and Guide to 101 Forgotten Lakes, Ponds, Creeks, and Streams in the Five Boroughs, reporter and Parks Department analyst Sergey Kadinsky describes how the bucolic space became the dumping ground of a nearby trash incinerator, and eventually, a city-owned paved lot".[54] - Station1 (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I think the references give some support to GNG. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Almost 100 years old, named after a former NYC mayor, WWI memorial, known history, coverage in the upcoming book. This seems more than a WP:MILL playground. MB 03:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. even relatively small urban parks are generally notable. This one clearly is for it meetsthe GNG. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 27 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Pearson (bodybuilder)[edit]

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

Non-notable athlete. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm seeing available sources with just a quick glance. Lepricavark (talk) 18:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 04:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lepricavark Seasider91 (talk) 12:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable bodybuilder who has won significant awards. Politekid (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Politekid has been blocked as a sockpuppet.[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 for Plan 9 Startup Incubator; delete Techhub Connect. Kurykh (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 Startup Incubator[edit]

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

Non-notable startup incubator, failing WP:CORP.

Also included for the same reason and being edited by the same account is this article on a related organization:

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two articles are nominated for deletion herein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NCORP. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 01:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As much as I fight promos, there seems to be sufficient coverage to ascertain significance, if not outright notability of Plan 9. Primarily, this is not a company, so WP:CORP does not apply. It is a government programme which has been widely covered in Pakistani[55] and international [56] media, and it was substantially more than a cursory mention as evidenced by the included reference list. In my view, the subject well satisfies WP:N and the article will likely be looked up by Pakistani readers. — kashmiri ^TALK 01:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kashmiri: Right, Plan 9 may squeek by, but what about Techhub Connet (yeah, that's the problem with multiple articles in one nomination, being lazy is not good here - note to nom...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:12, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Piotrus: Thanks, didn't notice this was a multiple nomination. Techhub Connect seems to be just one of many short-term projects undertaken by PITB [57] and in my opinion does not satisfy GNG on its own; on a cursory glance, the majority of links in the Techhub Connect article do not count as references as they don't even mention the subject. So, delete for me. Plan 9, on the other hand, is an ongoing programme currently in its 6th year and widely published in the press. The two seem entirely different, so merging might not be an option, although some links seem to suggest that the project is carried out within the framework of Plan 9 programme. — kashmiri ^TALK 01:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Satisfies WP:GNG per the coverage available, as also noted by Kashmiri. Mar4d (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked at all of the references and without exception, they fail WP:RS. None are independent (and intellectually independent) third party articles. They are all either advertorials (with the usual "quotes" from Plan9 executives) or advertisements. For example, the Tribune articles may appear to meet the criteria - until you see all the quotes from Plan9 executives - therefore not secondary sources and not intellectually independent. Or look at the entrepeneurs.pk article - leaving aside the fact that it is a blog and therefore doesn't qualify as a reliable source, the article itself starts off well until you get a few paragraphs in and you realise this is naked PR and nothing more, including the obligatory photos. Not one reference is from a reliable third party source. I'm surprised we have two Keep !votes already - maybe I got it wrong .. link me an article you believe meets WP:RS and makes for a good reference. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:48, 27 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 01:50, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Choc[edit]

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

Not notable; briefly in the news as part of the NCAA mascot decision more than ten years ago. WriterArtistDC (talk) 17:40, 3 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Chief Choc was well-covered in a significant debate about racism and college team mascots. The fact that it was ten years ago does not eliminate that coverage. Ongoing coverage is not necessary for WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:17, 26 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) 04:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Leo Weber[edit]

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

Not enough coverage in independent, reliable sources to verify or sustian article. Fails Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines and WP:BIO. None of the sources demonstrate significant coverage about him and most are by him. All I could find searching are passing mentions and a few quotes. Jbh ^Talk 01:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 01:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 01:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Jbh ^Talk 01:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:14, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication passes WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG in sources or in search results. Lack of significant coverage in independent WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:32, 27 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) 04:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)[edit]

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

This page was created under the title Princess Hatice in 2007 by User:Aciram, a biography about the daughter of Sultan Ahmed III and wife of Nevşehirli Damat Ibrahim Pasha. The main issue is that the page's title is wrong. According to this source it was Ahmed's eldest daughter, Fatma Sultan, who was the wife of Ibrahim Pasha, and although Ahmed had many daughters named Hatice, most of them didn't survive infancy and weren't notable figures. As it can be seen here Talk:Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)#Fatima and Hatice, User:Nedim Ardoğa also points out that the sources list Fatma Sultan as the wife of Ibrahim Pasha. User:Retrieverlove who probably had decided to solve the problem tried to move the page but instead another article was created under the name Fatma Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III) in 2014. There was a very long discussion here in 2015 to solve the problem but the articles remained as they are. Thus "Hatice Sultan" is a duplicate of "Fatma Sultan" and although many parts of it were removed throughout the time it still shares the same core material and sources with the other one. The only solution in my opinion is to delete it as it only confuses people and cannot be expanded by replaced material about one of the actual Hatice Sultans who were daughters of Ahmed III as they are almost unknown. Besides, keeping this article is wrong as it provides a fake biography about the actual figure who held this name. And as far as I know neither Ahmed III nor Nevşehirli Damat Ibrahim Pasha link to this article, so it can also be considered an orphan. Keivan.f^Talk 02:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. I created the article based on information of the source listed there, and the reference described a notable person. But I have no idea whether the author of the reference listed mixed up the name or provided incorrect information: I just followed the source, so as far as I know, of course the name or the information could be wrong, and I have no reason to protest. If the name is wrong, then of course the article should be renamed. If there is already another article of this person with correct name, then this article could be redirected to the correct name, and the information from this article, if correct, should be mowed to the other article. But of course, it is is certain that this name was indeed never used for this person, then it should be deleted altogether: if it is a name that has often been incorrectly attributed to the person (not only here), then it should be redirected, otherwise it should be deleted altogether. Thank you for pointing this thing out, Keivan, it is important to correct such things when they are noticed, good work! --Aciram (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - That all makes sense to me. I don't think a redirect is necessary, but perhaps a mention of Fatma on the disambiguation page for Hatice, saying that Fatma is misidentified as Hatice, and that Ahmed III had many daughters named Hatice who didn't survive infancy. Smmurphy^(Talk) 18:35, 21 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio Michel[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Musician whose has had "trending" tracks but appears to have never acheived the degree of success reqired for Wikipedia notability. Despite many refs, none seem to demonstrate notability in any depth. Reads like a puff piece Velella ^{Velella Talk} 10:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - while I agree that the article certainly needs copyediting for promotional tone, I think that the references indicate that the subject of the article has received sufficient notability to warrant a Wikipedia article. The article does require cleanup but I don't think it's a WP:BLOWITUP-level case. DrStrauss talk 10:41, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although my saying something here may not matter but I would just like to say that I've found Wikipedia articles about similar artists and local personalities. Many of whom have purchased PR and built up self promotional image that is not entirely justified by their true achievements. This article and the references provided herewith do not represent one such case. --Koustave (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there's not the substance needed for an actually convincing article in independent notability and that's the main concern there. SwisterTwister talk 22:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:42, 20 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. Yes, I notice the irony. Kurykh (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional consensus of economics[edit]

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

This article is well cited and of reasonable quality; however, I believe it violates WP:POV in such that it suggests a broad consensus of economists, when it is demonstrably false that this consensus exists. It gives clear references to reliable sources, but avoids mentioning sources who do not agree with the so-called consensus. This, by its very nature, means there is not a consensus. I considered researching and incorporating dissent into the article, but it is not my area of expertise. Also, if one were to write a section about the dissent or criticisms, it would imply that the article, in itself, was demonstrably false. In addition, most of this article has been edited by a single payed editor with no discussion. It makes incredibly bold claims and attempts to parade itself as comparable to the scientific consensus on climate change. A simple google search quickly finds that economists do not overwhelming agree over many of the claims stated within. Furthermore, the conclusions reached in the article are quite possibly original research. This warrants a deletion. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 03:33, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Dear Andrew, I believe you have a severe misunderstanding of WP:POV. To quote from the supplement: "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias. Without the inclusion and documentation of bias in the real world, many of our articles would fail to document the sum total of human knowledge, and would be rather "blah" reading, devoid of much meaningful and interesting content." Riceissa (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've conveniently ignored the reasons I've laid out as to why this article should be deleted. There is not a consensus on many of the economic claims made within the article. The sources consistently support only the positions made within the article and are almost entirely news articles, with few primary articles to back them up. Take the article Scientific opinion on climate change for example. It could be considered bias by many of its readers (like I consider this one), however, it is well supported by numerous sources, including primary sources and official organizations. This article, on the other hand, is not well supported (specifically, it does not sources that conclude contrasting positions). To give an analogy, I could easily write an article about how avolution was a theory in crisis. I could cite dozens of sources to the numerous creationists organizations, news reports, lectures, articles, etc. that discuss evolution as being false and a theory in crisis—ignoring the dissenting articles and opinions. Just because I could do that, does not mean that the article should be allowed. Of course, Wikipedians would never let that slide because it would not take much to demonstrate that it was bogus. I feel that this article is in similar standing: bogus, bias, and false. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 05:04, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"You've conveniently ignored the reasons I've laid out as to why this article should be deleted." No, I didn't. The only policy you cited was WP:POV, and I said that you are misunderstanding it. Riceissa (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I'll cite WP:FALSEBALANCE. And to quote from WP:NPOV, "Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view." This entire article violates this.

Like I said before, I do not have the time or expertise to do in depth research on the matter. However, here are a few results that contrast with the so called "consensus":

Bruno S. Frey (1984), "Consensus and Dissension among Economists: An Empirical Inquiry", The American Economic Review, 74 (5): 986–994
Hristos Doucouliagos and T. D. Stanley (2009), "Publication Selection Bias inMinimum-Wage Research?A Meta-Regression Analysis", British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47 (2): 406–428, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x
The Combined Employment Effects of Minimum Wages and Labor Market Regulation: A Meta-Analysis
$15 Minimum Wage
Over 600 Economists Sign Letter In Support of $10.10 Minimum Wage

This is not to mention that the article is entirely focused on a US perspective, which in itself is a major problem. Additionally, these sources just cover a few aspects (mostly minimum wage because of the ease of researching it) of the far broader consensus claimed within the article.Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 21:43, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding "most of this article has been edited by a single payed editor with no discussion", I am not sure what you are trying to say. The Terms of Use require only that I disclose that I have received payment for working on the page, which I have done. Riceissa (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Regarding "[the article] suggests a broad consensus of economists, when it is demonstrably false that this consensus exists", "avoids mentioning sources who do not agree with the so-called consensus", "There is not a consensus on many of the economic claims made within the article", "it does not sources that conclude contrasting positions": In the article, § Reasons for disagreement among noneconomists already explains why there is often an appearance of disagreement. Riceissa (talk) 07:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia does not publish original material.--Rpclod (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article meets none of the four criteria. Riceissa (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The extent to which economists agree or don't agree about their subject is notable. We also cover it on other pages such as economics#Agreements and mainstream economics. Per our editing policy, the topic should be preserved for further work. Andrew D. (talk) 21:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I believe all POV issues can be addressed by including the § Examples of disagreement among economists in microeconomics section I just created. Otherwise, I think the article is generally well written, notable, doesn't violate POV, and generally a pretty good article. Ethanbas^talk 23:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It makes absolutely no sense to have an article titled Professional Consensus and then include a section concerning the dissent fro that consensus. If there is any notable and reputable dissent, then there is not a consensus. It gives the false impression that there is complete consensus among economists, when there is not. At best, it should be moved; given a different article title. Though, I have no clue what it would be titled because the subject matter is incredibly broad. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 02:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? there *is* a broad consensus among economists on microeconomics. I pointed out one instance I know of where economists might disagree on microeconomics, which are heteredox economists and mainstream economists. Do you actually know economics? And how is this different from the consensus on human caused global warming having some scientists that don't agree with the consensus? I looked at your contribution history, and you cast like 20 AfD votes today, even though you have practically almost never participated in AfDs before. I appreciate that you're getting your hands dirty with AfDs, and I don't mean to patronize, but Riceissa's arguments for keeping the article are pretty convincing I'd say! -Ethanbas^talk 05:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Four points:

My other AfD contributions have no relevance to this discussion.
Your involvement in this discussion is most certainly a borderline case of WP:CANVAS on behalf of Riceissa.
If there is a broad consensus on microeconomics but not macroeconomics, then why is the article title called Professional consensus of economics? (Hence the nomination for AfD).
I am assuming good faith in your contributions towards reaching a consensus; however, I feel that your language is purposefully condescending. Therefore, I am no longer invested in discussing the matter without comment from someone uninvolved. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 05:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If there is a broad consensus on microeconomics but not macroeconomics, then why is the article title called Professional consensus of economics? (Hence the nomination for AfD)." OK, why not rename the article then? Why delete it? Ethanbas ^(talk) 07:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:37, 20 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of foreign observers of Russia[edit]

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

This is trivial, almost random. E.g. entries such as "922: Ahmed ibn Fadlan travelled from Bagdad to near Kazan, saw Vikings, 1682: John Milton A Brief History of Muscovy compiled from other sources, 1687: Foy de la Neuville possibly travelled in Russia". And it also curiously just ends in 1919 (and doesn't pick up after the dissolution of the Soviet Union). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Basis of the article is unclear, article name is potentially false or a misnomer. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball} 07:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Well, it's an interesting, well-defined, bluelinked list which we could define (and rename) as "Travel writers who visited pre-revolutionary Russia" (or something similar if you want "up to and including the Russian Revolution"), surely a notable topic, and one for which there are plenty of sources, including, clearly, books or other documents by or about each of the people in this list. I agree with Justin that the current title isn't quite right, but that's easily fixed. The key thing is that the criterion for list inclusion is clear and definite, and that the number of people who could be included is not unreasonably large. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It should be noted that some of these people, according to the article, wrote about Russia without ever visiting: "1515 Jacob Piso: Polish anti-Russian propaganda, never in Russia"; "1519 Christian Bomhover: Teutonic Knight, first book solely on Russia, very hostile, never visited Russia, little cited by later authors"; "1525–1543: Albert Compense, Paolo Giovo, Johan Fabri: Favorable accounts in interest of church union. Never in Russia." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list encompasses all sorts of states, peoples and regions in what is now Russian territory, e.g. Kievan Rus', Grand Duchy of Moscow, etc. How do you observe something that wasn't there at the time? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment from originator: As the original author I would rate the quality as low to moderate. I wrote it mainly to summarize Poe's book. It helps the corresponding category in that it says something about the observers rather than merely listing them, something that applies to any category. As for 'random'. 'did not visit', 'did not yet exist', that applies to the earliest sources for any country. It does not appear to be false or completely trivial or harmful. If the consensus were delete I whould not strongly object. Benjamin Trovato (talk)
Generally support Chiswick Chap. The writings of visiting travellers are a useful historical source. This applies (for example) to industrial innovation in 18th century England. It may well be that the list needs significant pruning. The hostile foreign non-visitors may or may not be useful: they may have been reporting what they heard of Russia in their own lands: a less good source, but not necessarily useless. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki - Transwiki to Wikiversity or Wikidata. Appears to be original research falling under political science or history. Michael Ten (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references indicate that the topic passes WP:LISTN. For example, the first entry -- the account of Ahmed ibn Fadlan -- is quite notable, being referenced in numerous works. For more recent times, we have Kremlinology#Notable_Kremlinologists_and_Sovietologists. Andrew D. (talk) 10:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is unclear since the list incorporates visits to areas not necessarily the part of "Russia." This would be better represented by a category than a list article. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:05, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable subject, the limits are fairly well defined. This is exactly the sort of subject thaat must have a list, rather than a category, because it is necessary to attach a few words of explanation to each entry to make sense, because of the wide geographic area and the various contexts. (This is plain compilation, and no more original research than any WP article.) I do not see in what way the title is "false or a misnomer". The nom may not have realized that the first entry is a famous visit from the most famous traveller, and the Vikings he saw were the founders of what became Russia. The later entries which appear selective, were mostly people who also wrote famous accounts. What this list needs is additional context for those who do not understand the significance. DGG ( talk ) 15:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems notable. I agree with DGG's comments re title. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:59, 28 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. General consensus. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 12:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Uzu Hotel[edit]

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

fails WP:GNG. Sources 1-4 merely confirm existence of the hotel. Being struck by a missile once unfortunately is not unique in Libya . LibStar (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Besides the sources in the article, the Libya Herald had an entire article about it. [58] Was Benghazi's foreign press headquarters during the Libyan Civil War (2011) [59] And these are just English language sources about a topic in an Arabic-speaking nation. --Oakshade (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - barely passes on the basis of WP:SECONDARY in the English language, but per WP:BEFORE you need to check other language sources. When you google فندق اوزو بمدينة بنغازي. (the arabic version of the name) a bunch of secondary news sources cover the hotel in more detail. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article makes no actual claim of notability and doesn't say much more than the hotel exists, one of many tens of thousands of hotels in the world. The headline of the Libya Herald article says the hotel was being renovated. Hotels are renovated all the time; that is routine local coverage. The book ref is a passing one sentence mention that says reporters stayed there, again not significant. Without evidence to the contrary, I won't assume that the Arabic coverage mentioned above is not just more routine local coverage. MB 16:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these comments are a matter of regular editing. Hotels might get renovated all the time, but only the notable ones are given national coverage for such actions, hence the notability. --Oakshade (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I guess. Let's see. I guess a couple questions are 1) does it meet WP:GNG and 2) does it fit in with the ~1000 hotel articles we have in Category:Hotels

It doesn't seem to meet GNG, no. (This is not necessarily a deal-killer, but it matters.) First of all one question is "do travel guides count as sources for notability?" Some say yes since they describe the entity in some detail, some say no because these are mere directories that list information on everyone, mechanically. But there don't seem to be even a whole lot in the directories. Passing mentions. There's a ref in a book, but its a passing mention.

Googling "فندق اوزو بمدينة بنغازي" does not really seem to get me a lot of really useful info. Some travel guides.

As to the missile hit reference, I can't tell, but it could be just a single sentence. OTOH this is Benghazi not Hawaii or London. It's a little out of the way, so you're not going to have as many refs. And there is the article in the Libya Herald "Benghazi’s Uzu hotel to get major facelift". Cant read it, but it's an whole entire article about the entity. That's something.

As to the question "If we have say 1,000 articles on individual hotels, should this be one?" Well, it could be that we should have 2,000 such articles, we just haven't made them all yet. 184 rooms or 262 is not a huge hotel, although it looks like a large impressive building. The Waldorf-Astoria New York has over a thousand for instance. But then Hotel Napoleon has 100. I don't really know the answer to this one, but let me recast it: "There are three articles in Category:Hotels in Benghazi (this is one). How many should there be?"

Well, Benghazi has 630,000 people, 1.1 million in the metro area. Hotels are part of the urban cultural life of a great city (they often host popular restaurants, too). Benghazi is on the Mediterranean so we would expect tourism to have some importance to its economy.

Hobart has 48,0003 people(221,000 metro) and Category:Hotels in Hobart has six articles... OTOH Category:Hotels in Adelaide is empty... Category:Hotels in Brisbane has six articles, and Greater Brisbane is twice the size of Benghazi, at 2.2 million... it's a mixed bag, and random depending on who decided to make articles, but I think a seaside city of 1.1 million (metro) ought to have at articles for at least it's main three hotels, probably more. Whether the Uzu is really one of Benghazi's Big Three I dunno, but could be.

On the other hand, it says here that it's a four-star hotel. Not sure who's rating, but the Tibesti Hotel is five stars I believe and I would guess that the Grand Hotel Benghazi is too. Those two are both a little little bigger than the Uzu too. So if you want to make the cutoff be five stars, you might not want the Uzu.

I don't see how the article is harming anyone, and we're not running out of paper. Since a reasonable case could be made either way, I'm not inclined to vote it out, for my part. Herostratus (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Libya Herald calls it a Benghazi landmark.[60] Arab News calls it the main journalist's hotel due to having the best Internet signal.[61] Seems a bit minor, but it's all relative. Timtempleton (talk) 23:37, 27 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) 04:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leera the soulmate[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG: deproded by the author without any improvements. I tried but can't find any significant coverage in reliable sources to pass notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 12:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At best, WP:TOOSOON. Unreleased film need to wait for an actual release to establish notability under either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:51, 27 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) 01:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Galkin[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Article created by an user which probably is in Conflict of interest with the subject (see his userpage). XXN, 12:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Conflict of interest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.233.214.74 (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- appears to be a notable scientist & author (Worldcat identies). Enough hits in Google books to suggest notability link. Member of Tatarstan Academy of Sciences. Here's the profile that they have published, which suggests a notable academic:

Vladimir Galkin: Academic-Secretary of the Division of Chemistry and Chemical Technologies. Doctor of Chemical Sciences, Professor. Director of A.M. Butlerov Chemical Institute at Kazan State University. Honored Worker of Science of the Republic of Tatarstan. link.

More sources are likely to exist in Russian / Tatar. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A GS h-index of 11 is not enough to pass WP:Prof#C1. Academy of Tatarstan is not sufficiently prominent to pass WP:Prof#C3. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.K.e.coffman correctly points out that we should check "Галкин, Владимир И." in Russian. Doing that search makes it clear that he exists and is well known but I can't determine his notability as an academic. Perhaps someone else might like to scrutinize the Russian results. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. we should never keep or delete based on h index alone; h=11 could mean 10 papers with 200 citations each and one with 11, or it could mean 11 papers with 11 citations each. The first is notable, the second not. Xxanthippe, please pay some attention to the actual distribution in your analyses. In this case he does have the highest papers with counts of 145, 46, 51,39,... but these are all review papers, which normally get very high counts because everyone cites the recent reviews whether or not they even read them. The highest non-review paper has 23 citations. As usual , this includes only those papers in journals that are either published in English or have published English translations (eg Russian Chemical Reviews), but people normally do publish their best work in such journals precisely in order that it be seen and cited. My decision to say weak delete rather than weak keep is based on the large proportion of cites that come from a closely associated colleague. DGG ( talk ) 17:18, 28 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) 07:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World Development Foundation[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Queried speedy delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: ...a mission to improve the life of... These videos are also available on... The initiative taken by World development Foundation... his is the first scheme of its kind in the country... let alone that whole 'Area of focus' thing- AKA, their shop window: The speedy was good. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 15:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been modified and the words/sentences specially mentioned by User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi have been deleted. I would request to retain the article after this revision. Rupalisharma (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete--Typical promotional spam.Even after a complete cleanup, nothing mentioned in the article seems to vouch for the notability of the article.The speedy was more than good.Winged Blades^Godric 18:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried to clean the lede up a bit so it read better, but after looking at some of the sources, many of which are dead links, there's no indication of this organization's notability. Unless the sourcing can be improved, this article is most likely going to be deleted. If that happens, you can try to fix it up and resubmit here Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation. Notify me on my talk page and if the sourcing is better, I'll help with the grammar and general cleanup when you resubmit. Timtempleton (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Request for retention and removal of deletion tag-- Godric has commented the article to be a promotional spam. When we write about any entity, you are narrating the fact regarding constitution, location, services, focus area, awards, references etc. These are statement of facts about the entity. This is true for any entity. Even if you look at Microsoft page or any other say Aga Khan Foundation. you can call the description as the statement of fact or promotional. Only mention about non-existent entity may be called spam.

As for as notability is concerned, let me refer to the page User talk:Rupalisharma and produce the scrutiny details before acceptance:

A photocopy of my talk-page
AfC submission World Development Foundation[edit] Dear APerson, I thank you for your comments on the talk page. This is the third time I have failed to bring the articles to the level to satisfy the criteria of wikipedia. The organization is doing lot of innovative jobs to help the farming community in India which is really very poor and starvation death has taken in many places. WDF is trying to harness the benefit of ICT and mass media to educate this section of the society. It has been pioneer in using community radio to reach them apart from using video films, live shows, video conferencing etc. It implemented two big projects in association of Govt. of India.It has been working as a partner with Media Lab Asia, Govt of India, TCIL (Govt of India) and has been closely assocated with UNESCO / Govt of India etc in deciding the norms and use of Community Radio for underpriveledged. I have given some very reliable references such as coverage by The Telegraph (Calcutta) India, Oneindia.in News, Confederation of Indian Industry, IBNLive / PTI Press Trust of India, etc. Pl help me in addressing the issue and advise me a bit. Regards. Rupalisharma (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC) 13/08/13 Those four sources you name give the subject somewhat tangential mentions. Feel free to re-submit it once you can demonstrate, using citations from independent (i.e. not from the website of the subject), reliable sources, that the WDF has had a significant impact. Not to say that it has not had an impact, but you probably need to prove it using sources. APerson (talk!) 18:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Dear APerson, Thanks for your valuable advice. World Development Foundation has been recognised as partner to Government of India with details of sector/ key issues being handled by it and the operational areas (region/ districts) of the country. Pl. see the links below: http://ngo.india.gov.in/view_ngo_details.php?ngo_id=worlddevelopment This is Govt of India site. I also give the news item by Press Trust of India / IBNLive CNN-IBN about the MOU signed by World Development Foundation and Bihar agricultural University under Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (State Plan Scheme of Additional Central Assistance). The link is given below: http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/bau-and-wdf-sign-mou-for-agriculture-project-in-bihar/688534.html The scheme is already implemented. I give the link below of the University. http://bausabour.ac.in/index.php/site/college/bac7 I hope these references shall provide the notability as required. Pl. advice and help. Regards, Rupalisharma (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thank you for improving the article! In general, the more independent, reliable sources you can add to the article, the better it will be and the more likely it will be created. APerson (talk!) 21:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply] Dear APerson, I am grateful for your kind attention and quick advice. In fact after having read on your site that you are on vacation, I was not expecting such a quick reply. I have made the necessary changes as mentioned in my previous references. I shall be very grateful if you advice me if I may resubmit it. Warm regards, Rupalisharma (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hello, Articles for deletion. You have new messages at APerson's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/World_Development_Foundation Dear APerson, I am grateful for the advice. I have made the corrections and provided more references. May I request you to review the article now. Rupalisharma (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply] Hello, Articles for deletion. You have new messages at APerson's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template. Your submission at AfC World Development Foundation was accepted[edit] World Development Foundation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply] Thanks very much. I will continue to create / improve articles. It has been a good experience. Regards, Rupalisharma (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "[reply] The article was accepted after 24 references were provided for a small article of 14 lines. I have greatest regards to all the writers, reviewers and administrators of Wikipedia. They are eminent people. There should be a consistent policy for acceptance and retention of the articles. The article having gone through the review for several months by several editors and accepted should not be reviewed again and again. I request you to remove the deletion tag for consistence of the policy of Wikipedia for acceptance and retention and also to save the efforts of editors. Regards to all the editors and reviewers. Rupalisharma (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A photocopy of my talk-page

AfC submission World Development Foundation[edit]

Dear APerson, I thank you for your comments on the talk page. This is the third time I have failed to bring the articles to the level to satisfy the criteria of wikipedia. The organization is doing lot of innovative jobs to help the farming community in India which is really very poor and starvation death has taken in many places. WDF is trying to harness the benefit of ICT and mass media to educate this section of the society. It has been pioneer in using community radio to reach them apart from using video films, live shows, video conferencing etc. It implemented two big projects in association of Govt. of India.It has been working as a partner with Media Lab Asia, Govt of India, TCIL (Govt of India) and has been closely assocated with UNESCO / Govt of India etc in deciding the norms and use of Community Radio for underpriveledged. I have given some very reliable references such as coverage by The Telegraph (Calcutta) India, Oneindia.in News, Confederation of Indian Industry, IBNLive / PTI Press Trust of India, etc. Pl help me in addressing the issue and advise me a bit. Regards. Rupalisharma (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC) 13/08/13 Those four sources you name give the subject somewhat tangential mentions. Feel free to re-submit it once you can demonstrate, using citations from independent (i.e. not from the website of the subject), reliable sources, that the WDF has had a significant impact. Not to say that it has not had an impact, but you probably need to prove it using sources. APerson (talk!) 18:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dear APerson,

Thanks for your valuable advice.

World Development Foundation has been recognised as partner to Government of India with details of sector/ key issues being handled by it and the operational areas (region/ districts) of the country. Pl. see the links below: http://ngo.india.gov.in/view_ngo_details.php?ngo_id=worlddevelopment This is Govt of India site. I also give the news item by Press Trust of India / IBNLive CNN-IBN about the MOU signed by World Development Foundation and Bihar agricultural University under Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (State Plan Scheme of Additional Central Assistance). The link is given below: http://ibnlive.in.com/generalnewsfeed/news/bau-and-wdf-sign-mou-for-agriculture-project-in-bihar/688534.html The scheme is already implemented. I give the link below of the University. http://bausabour.ac.in/index.php/site/college/bac7

I hope these references shall provide the notability as required. Pl. advice and help.

Regards, Rupalisharma (talk) 10:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for improving the article! In general, the more independent, reliable sources you can add to the article, the better it will be and the more likely it will be created. APerson (talk!) 21:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear APerson, I am grateful for your kind attention and quick advice. In fact after having read on your site that you are on vacation, I was not expecting such a quick reply.

I have made the necessary changes as mentioned in my previous references. I shall be very grateful if you advice me if I may resubmit it.

Warm regards,

Rupalisharma (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Articles for deletion. You have new messages at APerson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/World_Development_Foundation

Dear APerson, I am grateful for the advice. I have made the corrections and provided more references. May I request you to review the article now. Rupalisharma (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Articles for deletion. You have new messages at APerson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Your submission at AfC World Development Foundation was accepted[edit]

World Development Foundation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

_Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I will continue to create / improve articles. It has been a good experience. Regards,

Rupalisharma (talk) 08:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC) "[reply]

The article was accepted after 24 references were provided for a small article of 14 lines. I have greatest regards to all the writers, reviewers and administrators of Wikipedia. They are eminent people.

There should be a consistent policy for acceptance and retention of the articles. The article having gone through the review for several months by several editors and accepted should not be reviewed again and again. I request you to remove the deletion tag for consistence of the policy of Wikipedia for acceptance and retention and also to save the efforts of editors. Regards to all the editors and reviewers. Rupalisharma (talk) 14:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:27, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I shall be happy if expert suggest me any objectionable word/sentence. I shall be grateful for this. Rupalisharma (talk) 10:29, 22 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. No prejudice towards merge to WSR-88D, but the outcome is not delete. Kurykh (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MESO-SAILS[edit]

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

I very much doubt that this (whatever it is) is notable. TheLongTone (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate? This is entirely legitimate, I've seen no other articles covering the system, so I decided to make one about it for those studying Radar Meteorology. GlueManGoop (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC) (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - seems to be a fine little stub of an article, but I also doubt it has enough newspaper coverage or other coverage to pass WP:GNG. I suggest a complete merge to WSR-88D, with the creation of a new section and a redirect left behind. Yvarta (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That may not be such a bad idea. Didn't come to mind at first. I'll simplify it some, and *may* remove the individual article and i will create a section within WSR-88D. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per above. Whatever this is there seems to be plenty of reliable sources that support notability. As currently written it suffers from techo-speak. It was very easy to find reliable sources that discuss it in various levels of detail.

[[62]] [[63]] [[64]] [[65]] [[66]] [[67]] [[68]] It looks like there's enough material to expand the article although it's beyond my understanding. Gab4gab (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : At the moment, there is no explanation of the concept of MESO-SAILS at all but this is not a reason to eliminate it! With the cited references, it would be easy to expand it. This is more accepteable as an article than Volumetric Imaging and Processing of Integrated Radar which seems to me a commercial advertisement. A merge seems to be only a second best option. Pierre cb (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I added more contents to make a real article out of it. Pierre cb (talk) 16:48, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking the VIPIR article. Didn't realize that an article for it existed! I've always seen it as commercialized, which I try to avoid, given MESO-SAILS was developed by the National Weather Service themselves. (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be safe to remove the deletion discussion template now that the article is coming together nicely, thanks to your contributions? :) (talk) 3:41, February 8 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to @GlueManGoop:, above, no, please don't remove the Afd template until the discussion has been closed by an administrator. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, @Shawn in Montreal:, noted. Patience is a virtue. 4:04, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, this may continue for a couple more weeks, depending up the judgment of a passing administrator. It will be extended once, twice more. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:22, 20 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. General consensus - Merge articles if appropriate. (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 09:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After the Blast[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related page because of the closely related lack of notability of the book and the author :

Neither the book nor its author is notable. for the book, worldcat lists fewer than20 copies; he'san Australian, and although the National Library ofAustralia lists the book in their catalog, they do not even have a copy -- two years after publication. There is a prize, but it's very minor. I have not found reviews, though probably some brief notices exist. As for the author, he has no possible notability except for the books. The notes in Australian newspapers about his war service are trivial. And even if the book were notable, being the author of a single book is not usually enough to meet WP:AUTHOR.

I'm listing these together because of the close relationship. The editor has contributed only these two articles, plus a spammy link to the book in Security Detachment Iraq (Australia) which has now beene removed at least two times DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and reads like a press release for the book and author. Kierzek (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both The book was reviewed in a major newspaper here, and from memory elsewhere. It was also published by a major Australian publisher, and was widely available (I bought my copy from a "big box" retailer, and found it to be a good read). The statement that the NLA doesn't have a copy appears to be an error: it has two - not that this is a sign of notability. That said, I think that Wikipedia's notability criteria for books are rubbish, and won't support retaining an article on the book unless better sourcing is available. Mr Callender does not appear to be independently notable at present. Nick-D (talk) 01:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as I concur there's simply nothing for genuine substance beyond what's simply here as a few sections and sources. SwisterTwister talk 04:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Book has full lenght reviews in Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, The West Australian and Cooma Monaro Express. That's enough for WP:BOOKCRIT#1. duffbeerforme (talk) 10:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goldie, Nick (29 July 2015), "Book review. After the Blast: An Australian Army Officer in the firing line", Cooma Monaro Express

Quekett, Malcolm (27 July 2015), "Army veteran shares life skills", The West Australian

Cleary, Paul (27 July 2015), "Battlefield experiences hold lessons on life and death", The Australian

and redirect/smerge the promotional bio to the book, best both covered in one article. User:Nick-D, User:SwisterTwister, User:Kierzek and User:DGG. Any thoughts on the new sources? duffbeerforme (talk) 11:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found a url, fixed a title, not quite the full length review I first thought but coverage none the less. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My earlier statement about not being in NLA was based only on the Karlsruhe Virtual Catalog -- it has in my experience been quite relliable, but this seems to have been an error in its data. The West Australian article is a promotional interview about the book that had been recently published, with almost nothing about the book itself. ; I cannot see the others. But Cooma is I think not a national newspaper. The Australian is, but from the title it seems to be just like the article in the West Australian. the propensity of even the best newspapers to accept PR has made nonsense out of some our our earlier assumptions about reliable sources. If we do keep one article, it would normally be about the author, who might possibly write another book; but that article is so full of unencyclopedic detail that it might be better to have one on the book. If

Additionally (actually, I think primarily) if this had not been part of an obvious promotional campaign, I would probably have supported a merge once the NLA holdings had been identified. But the material here was an example of editing for a promotional purpose, and this should be discouraged as strongly as possible--at the very least, be resolving decisions in favor of deletion (personally, I'd rather delete them all unless the subject is famous, but there is not yet consensus for that). DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As Nick-D pointed out, the weak requirements of WP:BOOKCRIT seem to encourage this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources provided by duffbeerforme establish notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments should address Coffee's relist question above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Garth Callender only, Merge and Redirect After the Blast to Garth Callender. We have an article about a person with a story and the book he wrote about that story. They're inseparable. There's more out there about him than there is about the book -- except insofar as one can assume that when he talks about himself, he's also talking about the book, hence my !vote to keep the article about him. There are enough sources to satisfy WP:GNG. In no particular order: The Australian, The West Australian, Sydney Morning Herald review, Conversations with Richard Fidler (ABC.net.au), [Late Night Live (also ABC.net.au), Men's Style (via PressReader -- not sure if this is an EL problem), 60 Minutes segment (having trouble finding more than poor sites referencing this -- "Heroes of Ravenshoe/After the Blast/Switched at Birth"), 6PR (radio), apparently won (Bunbury Mail) a minor-middling (non-notable) literary award called the Nib Waverley, The Age and SMH published an excerpt.... It's not a slam dunk, granted, but I think it gets by GNG. There are other sources with smaller bits of coverage. I recognize some of these are primary and therefore varied in the extent they're useful for the article, but I think they all contribute to a sense of notability/coverage. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:15, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the book is notable. It has it's reviews that appear in major Aust newspapers. Many other references to it. It satisfies at least 2 of the requirements to get it past the line. Karl Twist (talk) 07:49, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to have at least two notable reviews (that I have found) e.g. [69] and per others stating similar above. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - both pass WP:NBOOK and WP:NAUTHOR. DrStrauss talk 19:36, 2 March 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:17, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All Things Are Possible (Hillsong Church album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

More than two years after the previous deletion discussion, the article remains essentially unsourced and clearly fails the WP:GNG need for significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail", and this article is completely lacking in that. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cannot see anything to support notability in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per previous deletion discussion. The fact that sources have not been added makes no difference to whether the article should be kept: AfD is not cleanup. In any case, the fact that it appeared on a Billboard chart is enough to indicate notability. St Anselm (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charting (especially within a relatively small market segment) is not a substitute for WP:GNG. There are no independent reliable sources that discuss this topic in detail, and there never will be. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, if this were in any way notable then someone would have cleaned it up by now. Charting on an obscure genre chart is not in any way an indication of notability or importance. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:46, 10 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Sadly, this is a fallacy. Lots of notable topics have poor articles. St Anselm (talk) 10:51, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it is acceptable to have an article that cites no reliable sources that discuss the topic in any significant detail? —BarrelProof (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Wikipedia is a work in progress. St Anselm (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that someday there will be some independent reliable sources that discuss this particular topic in any significant detail? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Right, but the concern is that no progress is being made after a rather long sample timeframe (2 years). And while, yes, there are lots of bad articles out there, that doesn't help defend an article once its at AFD. Charting is good, but it's simply unacceptable to have an article be entirely unsourced outside of a chart position. Sergecross73 msg me 20:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like you're arguing that because this article is very poor and has no sources to support it, it must be notable? If there are sources, then present them so they may be assessed. If there aren't, then the article should be deleted. Vague feelings that sources probably exist, somewhere, is not a substitute for meeting the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. St Anselm (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Charting album, nomination and delete !voters do not articulate policy based rationales for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

I note that the album is from 1997, prior to widespread Internet journalism, the title is itself both a Bible quote and a song title. Still, we have [70], [71], [72], [73], as well as accompaniment tracks and sheet music. It's missing critical commentary, but that doesn't strike me as unusual for a live Christian music album. Jclemens (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at those four links, they seem to consist of a promotional performance announcement that only mentions the topic of the article as one entry in a list of 11 albums by a group, and three commercial sites offering the album for sale (or offering a tracked link for referral to another site that does). Do you think that someday there will be some independent reliable sources that discuss this particular topic in any significant detail? —BarrelProof (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are already, but they're offline. That's what we mean by presumed notability. St Anselm (talk) 07:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the guidelines, we don't presume that things are notable until we see significant coverage in independent reliable sources. WP:NALBUMS says that "All articles on albums, singles or other recordings must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It does not use the word "presume". The only use of the word "presume" is in WP:GNG, which says that a presumption of notability is formed by identifying "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Since we have identified no such coverage, as far as I can tell, there is no presumption of notability expressed in the guidelines. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We can make calls on potential sources, sure, but to be a persuasive argument, generally you'd want a little proof that the sources are out there (for example, if a website like Metacritic aggregates a few magazine reviews that are trapped away in print form offline.) Otherwise, your argument just kind of fails the WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument. Sergecross73 msg me 20:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The lack of sources to meet the WP:GNG. A low charting spot on a genre-specific chart isn't enough, WP:NSONGS even says as much. I'm willing to consider if better sources are presented, but so far, just about all of them are retail/database entries like Amazon or iTunes, which I'm rather shocked that experienced editors would try to suggest would constitute significant coverage. Sergecross73 msg me 20:11, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 13:33, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Hillsong is notable in its genre (contemporary Christian praise music), so that their albums should also be notable. There clearly is an implied published source: the album cover. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire argument is a textbook violation of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:EXIST. Not every release from a musical group is notable too, and I have no idea how one would use an album cover to meet the WP:GNG... Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hillsong albums are a big deal. Note that the toolbar won't help because full article title is an improbably search term. Searching, for example, ""All Things Are Possible" + Zschech brings up sources.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does it bring up any sources that address the topic directly in detail (and are independent and reliable)? I tried that, and did not find any. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the article I added from a Florida daily paper is certainly a WP:RS, although I was searching "All Things Are Possible" + Hillsong at the time. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~I can't access that article. How much detailed discussion of the album is in it?~~ Now I seem to be able to access it. It seems to be discussing a different work (Shout to the Lord – The Platinum Collection), not this album. The only potentially relevant sentence seems to be "Disc 2 reels off several Hillsong favorites: the bouncy, brassy All Things are Possible, the toe-tapping God Is In the House, and the jubilant, rocking title track." I think the first of those three songs is the title track of this album, but that does not indicate notability for the album. It might indicate some minor degree of notability for the song, but it does not discuss the topic in detail. —BarrelProof (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. considering the millions of views the videos of this song have gotten [74], the multiple books and several websites that have published the song as sheet music, and the source you discuss, I conformed the lede to the idea that the article is about both the album and the (very popular) title song. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Jair Crawford (at the previous AfD) cited a review of the VHS version of the album, here. However BarrelProof stated that this is "only a one-paragraph blurb. IMHO, doesn't really meet WP:GNG's requirement for coverage 'in detail'." I don't know if that review will help this debate.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think a review like that constitutes "significant" coverage. It's certainly more than a "passing mention". St Anselm (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it significant coverage. Its only one paragraph, and the writer rambles off-topic multiple times in the beginning and end. Very little of substance is actually said of the album. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or possibly merge with album or artist, if and only if the category to be merged with is notable). I could not find any suitable WP:RS for this. If you can, I might change my mind. Please place links below. I looked at previous WP:AfD and that didn't convince me either. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. joe decker ^talk 02:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Currywurst mit Darm[edit]

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

Unreferenced tracklist. Not notable Rathfelder (talk) 14:40, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete fails WP:NALBUMS. LibStar (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references and virtually no content. No results in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:36, 28 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. Kurykh (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parents' Choice Award[edit]

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

NN Marketing-style award from a NN foundation. It seems that the only coverage of this award is in authors or reviews of books claiming that they won it or stores promoting books that have won this award. There are a few articles telling folks that such an award exists among a list of others (like the Carter article) but nothing in-depth to pass WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-established award, see for example Toys and American Culture: An Encyclopedia -E-Kartoffel (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That shows WP:Notability how? Yes, the awards have been given. Established != notable. Toddst1 (talk) 00:45, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd also support shifting the article's focus to the foundation over the award. In-depth coverage of the foundation exists in sources from not currently used in the article, such as a 1988 LA Times piece, a 2012 one from the WSJ, and a 1995 Washington Post piece. While these all discuss the awards, they treat the organization as more significant. The awards have received some individual attention without mention of the organization itself (a different WaPo article states that "a further indicator of a book's quality is whether it has ... received a Parents' Choice award", then goes onto describe what the awards evaluate), but this is lesser compared to the foundation's coverage. Squiddaddy (talk) 02:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per the findings of Squiddaddy Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Squiddaddy. A cursory search of newspapers.com found over 600 articles that mention it going back to the 1980s, giving it WP:SUSTAINED cred as well, and the fact that the Parents' Choice Foundation just redirects to this page shows that some article is needed here. Even if the focus is not quite aimed correctly yet, this is definitely an article that needs to exist in some form and should not be deleted. Sweet kate (talk) 00:22, 23 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) 04:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delivery (film)[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria of WP:NFILM. All I see are promos about its release and reviews in forums. Rogermx (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:41, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost certain COI creator user:DeliveryMovie. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Independent film with no indication that has had any distribution or festival showings or reviews. Sourced to blogs and non-independent promotional material. Searches turn up social media and little else. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:22, 27 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 Moved. Per consensus (non-admin closure) Nördic Nightfury 12:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wing Chun terms[edit]

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

Textbook WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, #2 / pure WP:OR - failed prod because it's "nice" Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well this isn't OR - there are plenty of Wing Chun glossaries out there.[75] As Wing Chun is a widely practiced form of martial arts, glossaries published by masters and clubs about the art itself should be considered independent reliable sources. "Not dictionary" does not apply here, because that policy relates to articles which comprise a dictionary definition of a single term, not to glossaries. The English Wikipedia has plenty of specialist glossaries, such as the others linked from ((Glossaries of sports)). Deryck C. 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support keep and rename Glossary of Wing Chun terms. Deryck C. 14:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This article explains the teminologies of a sport, per the ((Glossaries of sports)) Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 05:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Glossary of Wing Chun terms. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:40, 21 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) 04:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fiasco (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is about a musician that lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Note that this should be treated as a ~~second~~ third nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Adlam and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Adlam (2nd nomination) for the previous nominations. The referencing in the article is insignificant coverage. the most significant item is an interview in Stylehunter which I did note in the previous AFD. There was no significant coverage then, and that situation has not changed with this latest article. Whpq (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still no evidence of independent notability. None of the sources are actually about the record producer, and attempts to infer notability because they worked behind notable artists are pure WP:NOTINHERITED problems. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 27 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) 04:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional locations in The Railway Series[edit]

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

I believe we are well into cruft territory here: this is all in-universe, of interest only to the fans, lacking decent secondary sourcing, and suffering from excessive detail. Drmies (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The notability of the series as a whole is beyond question and a list of locations for such a geographically based work is equally obvious. The primary sources for this are substantial (especially the physical archive at Tywyn Wharf railway station), there are also adequate secondaries, mostly from Sibley, although I would remind editors that George and Christopher are different people to the Rev Wilbert, and so their works aren't primary either.

Mostly though, would this even get listed here if it was Batman? Primary-only sourcing is never a problem for US comics, but is regularly used as an excuse to delete UK material. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Dingley, if you are seriously suggesting that I have some sort of partiality here, well, I won't finish that thought. It's ridiculous. Also, I do not see why a "geographically based work" (read: a work of fiction set in a fictional universe) needs to have a list of those fictional locations as an accompanying article. "Secondaries"? where? Drmies (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything is about you personally. But WP has a clear bias in favour of permitting (if not encouraging!) purely in-universe sourced articles for the US comics canon, yet holding UK fiction to the same level as real-world geography.

The best known substantial secondary sources for Thomas are those that are listed in this article already - however their rarity in print and ferocious pricing means that few editors have access to them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 16:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This belongs on the Thomas the Tank Engine Wikia Page. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:44, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the franchise is undoubtedly notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the locations within the franchise can not automatically be considered notable without multiple, independent reliable sources discussing them in depth, which they do not seem to have. Of the three sources currently present in the article, two of them are primary sources, which leaves the one by Brian Sibley. And, as that is a biography of the creator of the franchise, I'm going to hazard a guess that it does not actually go into the level of detail about the fictional locations as would be required to support the amount of cruft in this article. Regardless of what is in that book, however, it is still only a single source, and, so far, the only independent source seemingly available. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 19:21, 21 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 (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 05:48, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humber College Comedy: Writing and Performance[edit]

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

I can't verify any reliable sources for the subject, thereby failing WP:GNG, the article reads as a promotional piece for a college program. Aloneinthewild (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the difficulty in finding any reliable source. this is a recent feature, just months old, in Canada's largest newsmagazine, Maclean's. Top of the search results. Then there's more passing coverage in an array of other Canadian media, particularly a quote from program director Andrew Clark that ran nationally in a Canadian Press story by Victoria Ahearn. I'm not casting a !vote, at least not at this time, but the notability of this college is substantially better than the nominator claims. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have this bylined story from the other end of the country, Vancouver, in Georgia Straight, on the creative and performing arts programs including comedy. This (cached version) from London's defunct Scene. This more passing but still substantial mention in a Globe and Mail piece by Guy Dixon. It helps to simply search for Humber College and "comedy," rather than official title. Do not delete. We easily have enough reliable sources for a small section in the Humber College, so a selective merge would be in order. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.
1. Krauss, Clifford (2003-12-12). "Comedians in the Rough: Canada's Very Special School". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-02-20. Retrieved 2017-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Most Canadians like to be thought of as civil people, apt to shy away from overt confrontation, loud behavior and brash idiosyncrasy. Then there are the 130 students who attend the comedy school at the Humber School of Creative and Performing Arts, appropriately located on the campus of an old mental hospital where "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" was filmed.
  There may be no louder, more tasteless group of Canadians anywhere.
  ...
  The School of Creative and Performing Arts is a part of Humber College, a trade school with 11,000 students spread over two campuses. While Humber may not be Oxford, its administration says it is the only academic institution of higher learning in the world that gives a diploma in comedy. And it most probably is the only school in the world that has a course called Shtick.
  ...
  While only five years old, the Humber comedy school has already found an expanding niche in Toronto's comedy world as a place where young people can break into a difficult business. Last year the program accepted only about one in five who applied, and a good number of its graduates have found work on television and the local club scene.
  The students learn the tricks of the trade, like how to handle a microphone, how to find a good agent, how to cook a variety of dishes on motel room coffee makers between gigs and how to direct passive-aggressive retorts at hecklers to shut them up and get the crowd on your side.
2. Terauds, John (2003-02-27). "Comedy skills are not elementary - Top funny people teach at Humber Students put on class show Saturday night". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2017-02-20. Retrieved 2017-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Among the many Second City alumni who are now sharing their talents in the comedy program at Humber College's School of Creative & Performing Arts, [Adrian] Truss- who many might remember from the comedy group Illustrated Men- loves the energy his students have, calling it "contagious."
  Right now, there are 125 students enrolled in the comedy writing and performance diploma and postgraduate certificate programs. For a broader reach, the school also offers evening classes, a summer workshop and a correspondence program, Guttman says.
  Thanks to an impressive teaching-talent list- Joe Flaherty, the current artist in residence, is only one among several big names to have graced the school's considerable credentials- Humber has been able to attract serious would-be comedians.
3. McShane, Larry (1999-05-08). "Don't Knock It. New School For Comics Will Teach Art of Making People Laugh". Philadelphia Daily News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2017-02-20. Retrieved 2017-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  The Humber Comedy Center, which aspires to become an Actor's Studio for comedians and comedic writers, opens this October with campuses in Manhattan and Toronto. Appropriately, plans for the facility were unveiled at Caroline's comedy club on Broadway.
  ...
  This is no joke: The comedy center will operate in Manhattan studio space and at Humber College in Toronto, offering a 30-week professional training program.
  But don't expect any cheap laughs: Tuition is $8,500 per year in the U.S., or $6,500 Canadian in Toronto.
  Students will receive instruction in stand-up comedy, sitcom auditions, improvisation, comedic acting and comedy writing for sitcoms, sketches and screenplays.
  Classes will run from 21 to 25 hours per week; once the session is completed, the students will perform in Caroline's before an industry audience.
4. Brown, Louise (1999-04-22). "New courses in September Students will investigate fraud, learn to tickle the funny bone". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2017-02-20. Retrieved 2017-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Did you hear the one about the new post-graduate course in . . . comedy?
  It's no joke. Comedy is big box office these days, so it's not surprising to learn North America's first college course on the art of making people laugh will be launched this fall simultaneously in New York city and Toronto's own Humber College.
  ...
  The 30-week program at Humber and the American Comedy Institute in New York will have courses in sketch comedy, stand-up, improvisation, screenwriting, teleplay (sitcom) writing, on-camera acting and audition techniques. Veteran comic and Howard Stern foe Steve Allen, who was first host of The Tonight Show that Jay Leno inherited from Johnny Carson, chairs the advisory committee for both programs. Yuk Yuks founder Mark Breslin is an adviser.
  Each course will be taught by a professional in the field. The program will admit 18 students on the basis of either performance auditions or written submissions.
5. Taylor, Bill (2001-07-25). "Dean turns comedy into a class(room) act". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2017-02-20. Retrieved 2017-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  It was Steve Martin who said comedy is not pretty.
  To which Joe Kertes can only add, "Amen."
  The dean of creative arts at Humber College, Kertes is the mastermind behind what is believed to be the world's only full-time university course in comedy.
6. Stoffman, Judy (2004-03-31). "College on TV just for laughs - Humber course draws Hollywood Show to feature student comics". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2017-02-20. Retrieved 2017-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  Hollywood, with its seemingly inexhaustible appetite for reality television, is set to make a star out of Humber College.
  Merv Griffin Productions, the company behind Jeopardy, and Creative Artists Management, a Hollywood powerhouse that represents Canadian comedy giants Ivan Reitman and Lorne Michaels, among others, signed an agreement last month with the college to make a reality show out of the lives of students in the school's innovative comedy program.
  Shooting will begin in the fall, when classes return. The students will open their lives and dreams to the cameras and could end up with their own comedy special on national American television. The deal could also lead to a feature film based on the show, according to Joe Kertes, the comedy program's founding dean.
  What's making Hollywood's mouth water is that Humber is the only English-language school in the world where a bunch of kids is getting an education just for laughs. The two-year program collects "130 class clowns" under one roof, according to Allan Guttman, director of the program, who one year got a pie in the face from his grateful charges at the college's graduation ceremony.
7. Woods, Robbie (2016-11-02). "Training the next generation of comedians, one gag at a time. Humber College's comedy program is proving that while you can't teach being funny, you can teach people how to get a laugh". Maclean's. Archived from the original on 2017-02-20. Retrieved 2017-02-20.
  The article notes:
  
  When you tell someone you are in the Humber College Comedy Writing and Performance program, the most common follow-up question is: “That exists?” One forgives the incredulity. After all, comedy school sounds like the sort of thing that 1) couldn’t exist, 2) shouldn’t exist, and 3) wouldn’t teach you much if it did.
  That, incidentally, leads to the second-most-frequently asked question: “Can you actually teach someone how to be funny?” I admit it sounds doubtful. And yet, a little less than three years ago, at 24, I drove to Etobicoke to audition for this peculiar experiment.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the article was badly promotional, but the subject appears to be notable as one of the few schools to offer a degree in comedy. Sources presented by Cunard are indicative of notability. I removed the promo content; please see: diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for maintenance. The article as currently written is definitely in dire need of sourcing and substance improvement, but the topic has been plainly shown above to pass WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Happy to be proven wrong on this one, maybe I was a bit eager and my original search terns where wrong when I was looking for "Humber College Comedy". I withdraw the nomination Aloneinthewild (talk) 21:32, 20 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.