The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 04:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Katya Elise Henry[edit]

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

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

An atrociously promotional BLP without a single word of referenced text. For some inexplicable reason speedy deletion was disputed. With utterly useless content like Henry is a glamorous fitness model, who became popular through the social networking platforms. She has a big following because of her stunning physique and her ideas to maintain the figure. This gorgeous and hot model is equally popular on twitter, facebook, and Instagram amd potential sources like Bootylicious beach babe Katya Elise Henry reveals all in barely-there bikini and Katya Elise Henry is one of the sexiest models on Instagram, not to mention gossip column reports of her engagement to a minor pop star as regular and credible as those of Jennifer Aniston's many pregnancies, the likelihood of notability here is next to none, and barely a shred of the existing text would be salvageable. WP:TNT this mess. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per nom. Promotional rubbish, unreferenced BLP. Neiltonks (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unreferenced BLPs violate policy. This one is overtly promotional. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete before I lose all will to live. "References" - official website (check), Facebook acct (check), Instagram acct (check), Twitter acct (check). (What - no LinkedIn page?!?!) No citation even close to WP:RS. Pure WP:PROMO. Narky Blert (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is more like a blurb from a promotional website than a Wikipedia entry.TH1980 (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT. I think the subject is notable, but it's really hard to find reliable sources amidst all the unreliable ones. I'd be very happy to change my !vote if reliable sources are found. StAnselm (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 3.2 million Instagram followers seemed like it might be enough to qualify under WP:BIO Entertainers #2 (Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following), but a quick check of the top 100 Instagram profiles[1] shows that #100 has 14 million followers, so her 3.2 million followers are not enough to meet the "large fan base" standard yet. Google search of articles shows mentions in Cosmopolitan.com, Maxim.com, and Miamiherald.com, but none of those articles qualify as "substantial" coverage. No other indications of enough notability that I could find. Neil916 (Talk) 09:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. After removing a BLP violation regarding her father, I'm not sure there's anything redeemable left. being hip on Instagram is not a measure of celebrity nor of anything real for that matter. Bearian (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Delete Per everything already said. Non notable.★Trekker (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete blatant promotion and no evidence of notability. Lepricavark (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real sources or references. Subject doesn't seem that notable. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Almost pure promotion. Montanabw^(talk) 11:08, 11 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Karol Bedorf[edit]

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

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

As per WP:MMANOT and only one source. SQGibbon (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is all a list of stats without anything in the way of a comprehensive biographical sketch.TH1980 (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons listed by Papaursa in the previous deletion discussion regarding this article. I don't know what state the article was in when it was deleted in 2014, but I don't see anything that suggests that the article is more notable now than it was then. Neil916 (Talk) 09:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This should have been a simple DB-repost.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Should also consider Mateusz Gamrot and Borys Mańkowski for the same reasons (same time and author) although these ones were not previously deleted.Peter Rehse (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that those two do not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMMA, but it may be a bit late to include them in this discussion. Papaursa (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No top tier fights shows that WP:NMMA is not met. In addition, routine sports reporting is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above arguments, failing NMMA, sketchy on GNG, and bad article. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:43, 13 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 – clear consensus and withdrawal request. (non-admin closure) Laurdecl ^talk 08:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritz's Equation[edit]

Ritz's Equation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A fringe theory, at odds with the science of the time, never mind our modern understanding. Relies primarily on first party sources, no evidence it was taken up by anyone or achieved the sort of wider notoriety required for fringe theories. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and perhaps rename "Ritz ballistic theory" as it was known in its time. Historical theories that fail are not "fringe science". There are secondary sources. As Arthur W. Conway said in his forward to A. O'Rahilly, Electromagnetics, 1938" Not everyone will agree with the author's estimate of Ritz; but everyone will agree with the elegance of his electrodynamic formula. Everything that Ritz has written in his short life is worth study, and the author deserves credit for bringing to light again his formulae. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It looks like a genuine theory, and is sourced. It doesn't matter if the theory was disproved or hasn't found favor or whatever. --doncram 18:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — This is an important topic in the history of physics. Physicists still discuss it, why it's wrong, what it means, and so on. See e.g. Ritz is Wrong by Wesley from 2003, and look at this scholar search to see why an entry for this wrong theory is nevertheless essential for our encyclopedia. Agree with StarryGrandma about rename. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I am persuaded especially by the scholar search. Obviously needs renaming per above, sourcing and cleaning up so it’s not just a wall of maths, but is notable and I withdraw my nomination.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mounes Kalaawi[edit]

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

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

Promotional Rathfelder (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nom. This article promotes the CEO of a healthcare firm and all of the sources appear to be self-published or promotional. There is a lack of reliable coverage and notability of this individual has not been established when judged against WP:BASIC. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I can't find any independent, reliable, substantial references to this individual.Glendoremus (talk) 01:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Slim GNG, PROMO. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 02:44, 13 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 04:55, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zine (songwriter)[edit]

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

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

As far as I can tell, she fails Wikipedia:Notability (musicians) (her music doesn't chart, etc.) and the niche (regional, from her city of Nice) coverage she gets fails broader NBIO. If anyone thinks she passes, please cite reasons/sources I missed. My French is intermediary, so I might have missed some sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have provided some sources in the article itself. Yes they are in French and Occitan. Of course Occitan songwriters are far from mainstream, but is wikipedia limited to mainstream information? Compare with Patric, one of the main Occitan singers of the 1970s/80s/90s (he's still active, by the way). I have just found the MusicBrainz record, not much info, but found one interesting link there, Zine performed back vocals (in Turkic) on Aynur's LP in 2005. So not so "niche". For the pics, I've posted a message on commons. Thanks in advance. --— J. F. B. ^{(me´n parlar)} 11:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now Seems to be reasonable amount of sourcing. We need further checks done on non-English language sources before deleting. AusLondonder (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Arnis at the 2013 Palarong Pambansa[edit]

Arnis at the 2013 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also adding the following for the same reasons:

Badminton at the 2013 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Table tennis at the 2013 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2013 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2016 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Athletics at the 2015 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Football at the 2015 Palarong Pambansa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Palarong Pambansa 2017 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Merge to 2013 Palarong Pambansa, which meets GNG as has multiple independent coverage. Results are relevant facts to store at that location. SFB 00:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A proposed deltion or AFD are yet to be added to the aforementioned editions of the Palarong Pambansa, but I will like to note that these articles meet GNG, even more so than individual editions of the non-student athlete version, the Philippine National GamesHariboneagle927 (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of causes of genital pain. czar 21:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genital pain[edit]

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

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

Correct use of redirect repeatedly overwritten to copy lists from other articles. User is doing this with multiple pages on this topic, simply duplicating existing info. JamesG5 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am adding content to these pages. Can't you show a little patience? Seriously, look at the testicular pain article, that's what I aim to have for these new pages, and it will take me just a few minutes to get them to a point where they have enough content so that they aren't simply a copy of any existing article. Please be patient, thanks! :) Ethanbas (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Redirect to List of the causes of genital pain (which should probably be renamed without "the", not that it's a big deal). On one hand, it's generally unnecessary and/or overzealous to nominate a non-vandalism non-blp article for deletion within a few minutes of its being created. On the other hand, in this case it's just a straight up copy/paste of the other article and thus rather explicitly not appropriate for articlespace (for WP:A10 or immediate redirect). Patience isn't really needed in such cases because it serves no purpose while it's there -- it's just duplicate material. That's what the draft namespace and user sandboxes exist for -- to give people time to work on otherwise problematic pages... until they're ready. So hopefully this is a temporary resolution (i.e. hopefully the article is indeed developed -- but developed into something that can stand on its own before it stands on its own). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Penile pain for remaining? I've gone ahead and copied the 4 pages I created to user space. I think though that essentially, these articles (minus maybe strangulation, although I'm working on seeing if that should be an article), I think these articles should be articles on Wikipedia. A lot of different things could be put in them. Ethanbas (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penile pain seems like a possibility if it's framed as something more along the lines of "types" rather than "causes" (i.e. "penile pain may refer to..."). No strong opinion, though. I haven't seen the various other articles, but since the real issue here is duplication of content, I don't see any reason to assume they couldn't be perfectly good articles once they have more original, sourced content. In other words, my !vote here shouldn't be interpreted as any sort of prejudice against the recreation of these pages later -- only that based on what was currently there, at the time I !voted, it was clear that it should be redirected. If they've been redirected, I think this (and any other such thread that may be open) can be speedily closed by the nominator or a third party. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This page is not useful and contains repetitive information found elsewhere. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is but one in name only, what with all the redirects.TH1980 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are two advantages to this article over List of the causes of genital pain. The trivial one is that it breaks the issues out by body-part, which the list page doesn't but should, to make it easier to find the intended page. The more important one is that it links to pages like testicular pain that give more detail than etiology, e.g. differential diagnosis. A list article can't cover that detail. The other pages (penile pain, vaginal pain) don't cover those details yet, but could be expanded to do so. It sounds like Ethanbas is working on an expansion along those lines and I think it makes sense to allow them time to try before deleting. Mortee (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing my vote to neutral. Long term I think an article on this topic that isn't just about causes will be valuable, along the lines Ethanbas has laid out, but no-one with the time and/or expertise to do so has come forward to make those changes to the page just now, so I'm equally torn between the arguments a) redirect to the useful, existing article and b) set up an article with the better, long-term structure so it receives attention and editing. I'll leave that to an admin to decide. Mortee (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect (to List of the causes of genital pain). The article was not edited since January 28 (AfD nomination), so I doubt a functional version will appear within minutes. On the other hand, Ethanbas or any other user is welcome to work on it by copy-pasting the current revision in a draft, and replace the redirect once the new version is ready. (If the page is deleted, please provide the WP:REFUND.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the page, giving it a prominent link to the 'list of causes of' page in place of the current duplicated content. That would encourage other editors to develop the page, and it makes better sense long term, since the causes of genital pain are one (obviously important) aspect of the topic, not the whole. Still, if it does go back to being a redirect and then change again later it's at no great cost. I'll contact Ethanbas separately to see if I can help with the drafts (not that I know anything about the topic, so I doubt I can do a whole heap). Mortee (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm busy with other things, and I already told Mortee I'm unable to work on these pages (vaginal pain, penile pain, genital pain) for the near future. I do follow Mortee's line of thinking when he says, keep the page and encourage other users to develop it somehow, and keep the page because there is clearly material that could be added that isn't on the already existing penile injury article, I just don't have time to work on this stuff anymore. Ethanbas ^(talk) 22:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not a case of "work on it or shut up". You have no duty to continue editing articles you "abandoned" midway - but equally, we have no duty to adopt those articles. I fail to see why a non-redirect article would be useful; I could be convinced, but unless it is imminently coming I do not see why an "article" that is a poor duplication of a natural redirect should be kept in mainspace. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that, as a redirect, the article will probably never get worked on, while if it stays up as a stub, someone might work on it. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. If I knew for certain that eventually (even after a long time) someone would turn that into an article with more value than a redirect, I would support keeping. The problem is, right now it is a poor duplicate of the list and if I had to write the article I would not know what to do. Per WP:RUBBISH, asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. - such assertion must be proven. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't have a problem with redirecting the article at this point. Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect (to List of the causes of genital pain). This is one of multiple articles on the topic created in the "hope" that someone else would do something with them. Since Ethanbas is acknowledging he has no intention of working on it, it's simply clutter to leave it. If someone wants to develop a detailed article at some point they can. JamesG5 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of the causes of genital pain. Once again, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK by this editor. There is no reason on earth for us to have two lists of why your genitals hurt, which is clearly all this is going to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect without prejudice. If someone can do something with it in the future, great. Otherwise it's just a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. De Guerre (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect List of the causes of genital pain is more useful than this one. PriceDL (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect for now. Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:46, 11 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. G7 deletion. Primefac (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming of Spring[edit]

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

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

This article is not notable in its own right, and significantly duplicates the Marzanna article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwrobson (talk • contribs) 21:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is the first time I've seen an article creator nominate their own work for deletion. This might have qualified for speedy deletion. I agree the subject isn't notable. The article itself is unreferenced. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7. – Joe (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I've placed the speedy delete tag on it. The article creator has blanked it and nominated it for discussion. It's clear he or she wants it deleted, I think there was an unfamiliarity with the CSD vs AfD tags... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Investment & Intelligence Center[edit]

Diamond Investment & Intelligence Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

An organization with 3 employees is seldom notable. "Canonizing" all of the information in the world about diamond investments is marketing gibberish. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't try to prove notability, reads as an ad. The three references given are a quote from the creator in a NYT article, a mention in the acknowledgements section of a forbes article, and an article that actually covers them, though that's not enough. JerrySa1 (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree, the entry reads more like an advertisement than an article.TH1980 (talk) 22:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - assuming it's all true, this is a tiny, run of the mill group. If you don' assume anything, it looks a lot like spam. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence M. Miller[edit]

Lawrence M. Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Self-promotional article, labelled as such for 7 years, no real prospect for improvement. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No notable coverage. TheMagikCow (talk) 19:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as although he's held in over 2,000 libraries with a particular book high of 653, I found nothing else otherwise convincing. SwisterTwister talk 21:34, 11 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Beyoncetan (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I Bet (TLC song)[edit]

I Bet (TLC song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The song did not chart and didn't have enough sources to conduct a full article. Beyoncetan (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dwen Gyimah[edit]

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

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

No improvement to the article's content or sourcing since the previous AfD discussion. Passing mentions, roles as an "extra" and mentions in articles written by friends. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article has been re-edited by numerous wiki editors and contributors, if the sources were made by 'friends' there would be evidence of that. Also wiki pages are updated on relevant information and sources and not updated for the sake of updating. Many sources are from wiki pages themselves or from notable well known sources. Many actors have also worked as 'Extra's', the sources provided do not label him as an extra other than some roles in imdb which is One source out of the whole list. Also Wikipedia allows articles on importance and notability which has been proven by sources linked and by all contributors who contributed to this article. Hanna Mania300 (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been re-edited by one editor - you - and another editor has fixed a few errors, so that first statement of yours isn't accurate at all. Now, this article was returned to a Draft following the previous deletion discussion because you said you'd improve it. So why haven't you bothered? Exemplo347 (talk) 18:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't see reliable sources that are entirely about the subject, just passing mentions. If there is sourcing that talks specifically and directly about the subject, then I'd be happy to re-evaluate. It may be that the subject isn't yet notable - but given that they are a young actor just starting out, that can easily change. Note that I closed the previous AFD, but only procedurally - the article had already been moved over to the draft space for further work. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agreed this article is about a young actor so sources could easily be updated as actor proceeds to be specified in futer articles for futer projects. This article has been drastically improved since the previous afd discussions age, sources, references, links to other wiki pages, has all been added which it did not include before, if you look at the article history you will be able to see that other contributors have re-edited and also improved the article. All article problems had been previously addressed and improved, notability has been proven by public interests from various different well known reliable sources, 'NME' being a big example as well as London Local which all address the subject as a fairy young but well established actor notable enough to be specified in articles for the large remainder of the public. Hanna Mania300 (talk) 09:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hanna Mania300: We had a discussion about duplicate !votes in the last AfD discussion. Don't start that again please. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you for addressing my attention to that. I have added 'comment' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna Mania300 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - To closing Admin - if this article is deleted, it should be SALTed to prevent its recreation. It has been repeatedly deleted over the last year or so. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources available are insufficiently reliable to pass GNG; there is no WP:PERSISTENCE or WP:DEPTH of coverage for the subject to pass NACTOR. A certain reliance on inherited notability. Ultimately, on the assumption his career continues on the expected trajectory, this is a case of- in another context- TOO SOON. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A few of the sources are not appropriate for Wikipedia. What is left does not pass GNG. I agree that this is TOOSOON. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete may be notable someday but clearly isn't yet. While we're at it, use of sockpuppet accounts is hardly indicative of a good-faith attempt at an encyclopedic article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Beyoncetan (talk) 21:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Return of TLC tour[edit]

Return of TLC tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The page should be deleted because "Return of TLC tour" is not an official tour nor an official title that any source mentioned. However, the fact is that they did went on tour in 2016, but they usually performed as parts of festivals – not a part of a real, official "world tour". Beyoncetan (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suppose it's a matter of two things:
  • where the definition of a "tour" begins and ends
  • how a tour article should be titled if the tour doesn't have an official name.

But if it does qualify as a tour (enough to have an article), even if it isn't called "Return of TLC Tour", then the best course of action would be to move it to a suitable title. — Smjg (talk) 22:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:47, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bowl of Oatmeal[edit]

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

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

Non notable film. Fails WP:GNG. Koala15 (talk) 17:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete 10 years and no improvement = rubbish bin. I actually don't care, as Wikipedia is a repository of human knowledge. Ce la vie. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails every relevant notability criteria - I can't believe it has survived so long with such weak references, but I'm glad it has floated up from the bottom so it can be flushed away properly. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this article has not been updated in awhile, and lacks notability, I think it could go.TH1980 (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Google search results shows nothing convincing GNG and NFLIM. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 00:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - student films are proverbally common to the point of being mundane, and except for one by George Lucas, they are rarely considered notable. Bearian (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Hear the Dogs Barking?[edit]

Do You Hear the Dogs Barking? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

the only source is an IMDB page. there are also no notable cast members Wasabi,the,one (Talk Contributions) 17:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There were three (non-IMDB) sources before you even nominated it. I've just added another. Not to mention the fact this was selected for the Palme d'Or at the 1975 Cannes Film Festival. Having "no notable cast members" makes no sense for deletion and is an invalid article. Several of the cast look like they'd be notable, if an article for them was created. Also, as this is Mexican film, there are sources in Spanish using the Spanish film title. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be precise, the film wasn't selected for the Palme d'Or. It was one of 22 films in the main Cannes competition which were eligible for the Palme d'Or. Chronicle of the Years of Fire was the winning film that year. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Needs a plot. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article needs work and a plot, per L3X1. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Angelo Litrico. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Litrico[edit]

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

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

Fails our WP:GNG Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, which summarises what independent sources have published about subjects. I can find no in-depth coverage of him anywhere. Theroadislong (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from authorPlease do not delete the article. I worked hard, help me to improve it. Klimgeran (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I just want to improve the article. Klimgeran (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or Keep, but it is way too early to hold an AfD Subject is just some guy related to Notable man who now works in the company. He didn't really do anything of note. Also the article is 4 days old. The article is clearly under construction. Note to author, keep in mind, if this guy didn't do anything notable, all your hard work will go to waste. I'm just buying you some time. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 18:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Angelo Litrico. Clearly promotional, probable undeclared COI. This has already been deleted three times on it.wp as blatant promotion, now the same user is trying it here. The firm is indubitably notable, and it may be that we should have a page on that rather than on the founder; this person is one of the managers (perhaps owners too) of a notable firm, so gets some mentions. But he's not notable in his own right. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: COI declared here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  At least it's not paid editing. J947 20:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy and Redirect to Angelo Litrico or, as Justlettersandnumbers has said above, to the firm. - He might become notable later; this might be another potentially valuable user to lose because of strictness in AfDs. J947 19:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to author: Klimgeran, if the end result is 'Redirect' (which it probably will be), if you go through old versions of the page you can still see your work. J947 19:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Angelo Litrico (to the firm if an article is created on it). Userfying the current content is fine. This appears to be a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. We're not seeing, or finding, independent, reliable sources showing the notability of this person. Speaking only for myself, it's difficult to find sources when the most likely sources will be in Italian, but it's telling that the Italian Wikipedia has deleted this article three times. Note that it appears that Luca Litrico is no longer associated with his uncle's firm. According to Angelo Litrico and http://www.world-fashion.info/firm/5016-Luca-Litrico Luca left the firm in 2012 to form his own brand. I don't see any problem with having this article at AFD. We have a COI editor who created a very questionable article, and who seems to have some CIR issues with English Wikipedia, but we didn't speedy the article. We brought it to AFD after a few days and nothing is going to happen for a while. In the meantime editors are looking at the article and discussing things with the creator. This is at the user's page, other users' pages, the teahouse, and the article's talk page. If the subject is notable we should be able to find the sources and article will survive, and if not, well, we don't keep articles about non-notable subjects for fear of losing a COI editor's possible future contributions. Meters (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks....i understand. Klimgeran (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought free. This is my first project on Wikipedia. Klimgeran (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per the suggestion above is my vote.TH1980 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mufassil Islam[edit]

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

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

No indication of passing creative professionals and any biography. The subject was in news for only one event and I can't find anything else to support notability. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 17:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as clear advertising alone. SwisterTwister talk 03:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a chatty BLP violation sitting on top of a soap box. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 21:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Kittelson[edit]

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

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

Mr. Kittlelson does not meet the specific notability requirements under WP:POLITICIAN. Whether the article meets the general biographical requirements are debatable. Dolotta (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article has been around awhile but has not been grown by knowledgeable Wikipedians, apparently due to how minor a political figure Mr. Kittleson is. This article is, in my opinion, dead wood as a result.TH1980 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails our Notability guideline for politicians. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - we almost never keep such stubs. Bearian (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NPOL. Unsuccessful candidate, no other indicia of notability. Montanabw^(talk) 11:10, 11 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. Can nominate for deletion under CSD G4 instead. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:36, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Project Management Association[edit]

International Project Management Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable organisation. Was previously speedy deleted under A7 but was recreated. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 16:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. author request Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:01, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Joydeep Chakrabortty[edit]

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

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

Assistant Professor. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:PROF - CSD (A7) disputed. WP:BEFORE search found nothing to indicate notability. Exemplo347 (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment user Sdbakshi13 has added ((db-author)) to page. —Non-Dropframe _talk 20:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 21:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edward James (historian)[edit]

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

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

Insufficiently notable. CoolieCoolster (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has a biographical entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and as an author he is the recipient of a notable award, namely the Hugo Award. --bonadea contributions talk 15:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per comments by bonadea. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction article also lists additional awards. Satisfies WP:ANYBIO. Gab4gab (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has won several notable awards, including the Hugo, which is the most prestigious award in science fiction. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficiently notable. Lepricavark (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Hugo Award alone meets the criteria, the rest is icing on the cake. Montanabw^(talk) 11:11, 11 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Hawkins[edit]

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

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

Bio for a person who clearly has access to a very efficient PR team - searching for sources yields large numbers of press releases and other primary sources all showering her with accolades, but nothing that serves to meet WP:GNG. She's a motivational speaker, and she's done a lot of motivational speaking (cos that's her job, innit), but that doesn't in itself make her notable. bonadea contributions talk 15:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, I have cleaned it up a bit and removed some exaggerated/unsourced claims - the pre-cleanup version was a borderline G11 case. --bonadea contributions talk 15:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't find a thing about this particular "Terry Hawkins" on Gnews. Other people, yes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Cannot find anything obvious to support notability, unless you count large volumes of primary material but in many different sources. No or very little strong IRSS - however is this due to systemic bias. If the person was male would there be more IRSS in more main stream media. If others think so too I would agree to keep as a counter to systemic bias PROVIDED the article gets referenced by something other than her own web site. Aoziwe (talk) 11:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, systemic bias is a problem, but we simply cannot and should not keep biographies of living people that do not have neutral and substantial sources to back them up. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Marseille melee attack[edit]

2017 Marseille melee attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is definitely not notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Sure, there is coverage, but it is a minor incident involving an injured soldier. If we had articles for this kind of minor crime, we would be creating thousands every month. st170e 14:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per nom, a minor incident very unlikely to be notable. If it becomes notable as it’s e.g. part of some wider incident then it can be covered as part of that. But as-is delete.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Attacks like these happen nearly every day in Israel. I think the article on the attack in Paris on February 3 is also not suitable for wikipedia. Both attacks have little impact in society in comparisslon with the major incidents like the 2015 november paris attacks and the charlie hebdo shooting.. JBergsma1 (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:NOTNEWS. Also see WP:RECENTISM. AusLondonder (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTNEWS, and this is only a news story due to the Louvre attack happening hours earlier. The supplied reference supplies no evidence to show it is more than an ordinary assault, but it does tempt the reader to synthesize a relation. It is not for us to speculate on possible future notability. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are no indications of any notability here. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with the WP:NOTNEWS classification, nothing notable about this crime. Kamalthebest (talk) 06:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a notable incident. "Some men beat up another man who happened to be a soldier" just doesn't make the cut for an encyclopaedia. If it were connected to the attack at the Louvre it might merit a mention in that article as a related incident, but there's no evidence that it was a related incident. Neiltonks (talk) 09:08, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg (film)[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:NFF - too soon for an article. st170e 14:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per this from April 2016 that shows a still from the film with the caption that it is "currently in production". Therefore it satisfies WP:NFF. Would you consider withdrawing the nom, St170e? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Erik: Thanks for finding this, I'm happy now to withdraw the nom. I couldn't find a source with evidence/info that it was in production. st170e 20:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep My Gnews search reveals sufficient coverage to meet GNG. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Army Men III[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable fan game. Topic lacks significant coverage from reliable independent sources. The1337gamer (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is superfluous due to its lack of notability.TH1980 (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Do NOT Delete I've updated the article with supporting references and citation. Hopefully it helps. The article should stay. --Vanguard2042 (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1 is some random YouTuber's channel. Not a reliable source.

Reference 2 is a ModDB page for a completely different game. It does not mention the subject of the article. It is also a primary source.

Reference 3 is a ModDB article on Unreal Engine. It does not mention the subject of the article.

Reference 4, 5, 6 are primary sources from the developer's of the fan game.

Reference 7 is an IndieDB page for a completely different game. It does not mention the subject of the article. It is also a primary source.

Not a single reference you've added contributes to the topic's notability. --The1337gamer (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 1: That "random YouTuber" is the game's storywriter and director. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kNLp6CIReo

Reference 2: It's not a game, its a mod, and its where Army Men III originated from, at least according to Franklin (the dev behind the game).

Reference 3: I was just adding reference to the UDK's release and I thought I was required to cite the source with the history behind the start of their game.

Reference 4, 5, 6: This was just to confirm what happened to the game. Is there really anything wrong with that?

Reference 7: I guess that was probably best left out.

I took another look at my last edit and maybe they should've been listed as external links instead so I will add more to this article tomorrow.

When you said "notable sources" are you looking for press coverage? Reviews? Interviews? --Vanguard2042 (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you read the criteria at WP:GNG. Take a look at WP:RS, which discusses what constitutes reliable sources. For video games, see WP:VG/RS list. We are looking for things like credentials, editorial oversight, peer review, etc. We are looking for sources independent of the author/developer. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I polished the page a bit, I thought there were at least a couple more news sources but it seems only one I can find is from Small Dev Talk which I already know about that. According to the articles HELLKNOWS linked me, it says for notability I need at least one existing source. Seeing Small Dev Talk has interviewed a lot of other games, hopefully it counts right? --Vanguard2042 (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: For some reason, a bot deleted all of my work immediately for some reason when I moved the references to external links based on the advice here. Was I missing something? --Vanguard2042 (talk) 11:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG talk in plural about sources, so you need multiple sources (that also fit all the other criteria). 2 would be really really stretching it, as you couldn't really write significant content from that. So 3+ is usually the minimum when discussing article deletion. Small Dev Talk source is an interview -- thus it is essentially a primary source as the developer themselves give information. This could supplement the sourcing, if the interviewer is a reliable source, but it does not count for notability. The bot reverted the change, because you--as a new user--added a plain youtube link, which is almost always misused. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly misses coverage from reliable sources. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable fan game failing WP:GNG with no secondary, independent, reliable, in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. Sources in the article are not reliable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Non-notable fan game with no reliable, secondary sources. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Fails GNG. The1337gamer's assessment on the sources present is correct. Sergecross73 msg me 20:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Herrera[edit]

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

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

Apparently self-created article. Subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG and unclear which other specific category for notability could be met - references provided indicate he is the web designer/media spokesperson for a government department. Melcous (talk) 12:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Not much coverage, and his job titles are not significant enough to merit articles on holders of such posts. Edwardx (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete directors of communications for government institutes are not notable. His boss the actual director may be, but he is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Lewis[edit]

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

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

I do not believe the subject meets WP:Music - without access to chart data, I can't comprehensively state this is fact, however I can't currently see any evidence for supporting this or any other of the music criteria, or even WP:GNG - there's a tiny bit of routine coverage of a Voice contestant, but nothing significant from trustworthy sources. When I first came across the article, it was very poorly written, like a fan-site, possibly with considerable WP:Copyvio, all added by a very seldom contributor 6 years ago (it looked like this). I have improved and wikified it, however now I question its notability. Rayman60 (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination. Mz7 (talk) 14:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skate Helena[edit]

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

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

Non-notable figure skating skating event. Almost exclusively results based sources. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:30, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. No such user (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not a world-shaking event, but it is an European cup listed at the ISU calendar [2] and receives significant year-to-year coverage in Serbian press 20142014 2015 2016 2016 2017. Probably the most important annual international event in Serbian ice-skating (not that I'm into the matter.) No such user (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

80's remix[edit]

80's remix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I am honestly not sure about this one, I am pretty certain it shouldn't be a standalone article, as it appears to be mostly WP:SYNTH as it stands at the moment, though some of this material could be used in the Remix article perhaps.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  08:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation herein.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Prasuton Manorah (TV series)[edit]

Prasuton Manorah (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:TVSERIES, as tagged since August 2008. Arguments in the 1st AfD do not actually establish notability. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:28, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Per my comment at the previous AfD, it is very likely that this would have been covered in the day's entertainment news, and any exhaustive effort to verify the subject's notability should probably include a trip to a newspaper archive in Thailand. However, it's quite clear that no one's going to pick up the task soon, and the WP:BURDEN otherwise lies with the creator. Probably the best thing to do would be to create an article dedicated to the Thai version of the tale, which could then host a list of the various media adaptations. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gunz For Hire[edit]

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

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

Non-notable musician. - TheMagnificentist 17:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no references and no indication of notability. Karst (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edith Merritt McKee[edit]

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

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

This article was created in November, apparently as part of the University of Calgary/Introductory Geology (Fall 2016) project. However, the geologist doesn't appear to be notable. The closest thing to a claim of notability is "McKee was the first woman to work in the oil fields of Saudi Arabia." But even that's suspect; the reference to this (the only reference for the article) is an obituary in a small-town newspaper, the Petoskey News-Review in Petoskey, Michigan (population 5,670). The obituary itself, which was likely republishing information provided by surviving family members, seems to have errors, referring to the "American Institute of Petroleum Geologists", but probably intending either the American Association of Petroleum Geologists ([3]) or the American Institute of Professional Geologists ([4]); which suggests it is not a reliable source in any event.

I can't find any further information on McKee to establish notability. Since this is a school project, I notified the project and held off calling for the article deletion for a few weeks. I figured the professor who assigned the article to be created knows something to support notability, and it just needs to be added; and I didn't want to throw a new contributor into the Wikipedia deletion process if I can avoid it. But it looks like it's not being updated.

I normally would have PRODded something like this, but given that it was academically assigned, I'll bring it to AfD in case there really is something to salvage here. TJRC (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

did you do a google books search? Beatley (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but found nothing other than directory entries, at least where the text was visible. TJRC (talk) 21:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Week Keep I was able to find several articles quite easily where she is covered in the Chicago area for mapping Lake Michigan, and on lake erosion and pollution. I found confirmation that she worked in Saudi Arabia as the first woman "Aramco field geologist" - which probably does mean the first woman geologist in Saudi Arabia. AIPG is correct, that org changed its name to Association of Professional Geological Scientists. I think it adds up to just enough. MB 01:47, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• [5] Chicago Tribune reports she made the first reliable drawing of bottom of Lake Michigan.
• [6] Chicago Tribune article on her disagreement with Corp of Engineers on lake erosion
• [7] Another Chicago Trib article on beach erosion.
• [8] Chicago Trib article on lake polution.
• [9] mention on erosion in Christian Science Monitor
• [10] listed here as author of bulletin on Philippine Island terrain
• [11] mention here on erosion study
• [12] mention about lake bottom diagramming
• recognized in Mar 2007 Professional Geologist mag for being member of AIPG/APGS for 40 years
• AIPG 2003 History bulletin reported she gave testimony to Congress in 1975
• [13] Geological Society of America publication confirms she worked in Saudi Arabia

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1998 UCI Road World Championships start list[edit]

1998 UCI Road World Championships start list (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Olympians and cyclists and weightlifters at World Championships BaldBoris 17:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234: A list of cyclists in a similar vain I AfDed since was speedily kept, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cyclists at the 2016 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships. I'll leave it with you. BaldBoris 00:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a deletion of List of cyclists at the 2016 UCI Cyclo-cross World Championships as well. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:48, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not much more than a list of "who was there" The Banner talk 21:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Classic example of WP:NOT. This is just a list. Delete per nom. CrispyGlover (talk) 15:15, 13 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. SoWhy 13:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nepal Idol[edit]

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

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

Article consists entirely of one infobox, no references, and a one-paragraph lead (which makes up the entire content). Not notable at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is purportedly premiering in 2017, but is not referenced as such. Even the external link listed in the infobox fails to confirm that this exists — it links only to the front splash page of the network that's purportedly airing it, and even that consists of a "We're launching soon" notice rather than any content verifying any of its programming at all. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when this can be reliably sourced over WP:NMEDIA — but if it's so unsourceable that it's impossible for us to even determine whether it's a real show that hasn't premiered yet or an outright WP:HOAX, then it's WP:TOOSOON at best. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Volleyball Copa Latina[edit]

2009 Volleyball Copa Latina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable sports event. Violates WP:Sports event Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:

2010 Volleyball Copa Latina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2011 Volleyball Copa Latina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012 Volleyball Copa Latina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2013 Volleyball Copa Latina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Comments. I'm leaning towards keeping 2013 Volleyball Copa Latina as being officially sanctioned as an international sporting event, but we might consider a merge instead, which is actually recommended as a course by WP:SPORTSEVENT. I'm not sure what to do with the earlier ones. Should we delete or merge them? Discuss, please. Bearian (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. postdlf (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of asteroid names[edit]

Pronunciation of asteroid names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article does not mention a single source even though unreferenced and OR flags have been added more than six years ago. It is likely that there are no sources for many of the pronunciations in this article. Seeing as there are abundant Category:Lists of asteroids, nothing is lost when this article is deleted.

I am also nominating the following related pages because it has the same flaws:

Pronunciation of Trojan asteroid names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

--mach 🙈🙉🙊 12:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as they fail WP:NOTDICT by being a usage guide in addition to what the nom said. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions})
• Delete both. If a reliable source discusses the pronunciation of a notable asteroid, then that can be included in the article about that asteroid. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Pronunciation can be applicable to invidividual articles, we don't need a massive list of them all. Ajf773 (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If sources can be found, this information can be merged into individual articles where they exist. Asteroids which aren't notable enough for an article aren't worth recording this information. Modest Genius ^talk 18:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Renaldi Gondosubroto[edit]

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

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

Cannot find any sources did not pass Wp:Bio ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 01:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I do not believe that this article should be deleted because it already has clear sources, so I do not see the problem with sources that the user requesting for deletion has mentioned. Theyoungeditor123 (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck content from confirmed sock above, per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. not yet notable. If it weren;t already here, I'd have listed for A7 speedy . The refs seem obvious press releases from their format, tho I admint Ido not know the language.. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Theyoungeditor123 is related to this AfD. Mz7 (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This person may become notable in the future, but they clearly aren't yet. He's the CEO of an early stage startup. The startup itself isn't notable either. A scan of google also turns up only a very few articles. --Yamla (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is a young person who invented something, last year. This is too soon for for one event. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:43, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Manuatu[edit]

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

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

This person appears to be a minor political staffer with no particular notability. If it was true that he had "exchanged blows with Mia Freedman", he might be notable, but these appear to have been metaphorical. Grahame (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and (to the extent this relevant) WP:POLITICIAN. Not the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources, not an elected official, not a major political figure or leader of any substantial political grouping. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I think there is sufficient NEXIST to scrape this one over the general NG. No article has to get over any particular SNG or have a particular notability. Aoziwe (talk) 12:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there are a few sources but they're pretty much all WP:ONEEVENT stuff for his fifteen minutes of TV fame. Pretty thin sources apart from that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Dillon (football)[edit]

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

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 11:39, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not played or managed senior international football nor played or managed in a fully professional league. No indication that subject has garnered significant reliable coverage for any other achievements to satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as above, has not played in international of professional football, and does not separately meet GNG. Mattlore (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  09:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hotel Yarab Tso[edit]

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

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

The text is just a presentation of an hotel, whose notability isn't clarified. pt:Stegop ^talk 04:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

• Merge into Tegar. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:Notguide and Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. Hotel exists, but does not appear to have received the kind of coverage necessary to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Has no historic significance, no references to suggest otherwise. KDS4444 (talk) 07:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is adequately sourced.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:Notguide; no encyclopedic relevance, merely a hotel description, which can as easily be found on the hotel's web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as simply a business listing and travel guide, of which we're not, regardless of what exists. SwisterTwister talk 21:10, 11 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 no participation herein other than from the nominator.) North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Global Spirit Tour[edit]

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

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

Another concert tour that won't start for few months (start date: 5 May 2017), referenced only to primary sources. A merge suggestion from last October wasn't acted on yet. I suggest soft delete (redirect), so this is restored on May when there may be more sources and this passes Wikipedia:Notability (music) for concert tours. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Scottish Premiership. The consensus is that while this will likely merit a standalone article in the future, at the moment it is too early. Mz7 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017–18 Scottish Premiership[edit]

2017–18 Scottish Premiership (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This page does not meet WP:N, WP:V or WP:RS. It is far too early to know any information about the 2017–18 season, other than basic details. Exxy (talk) 11:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Exxy, we know very little about the tournament and we won't have sources to substantiate most of it until closer to the new season. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Scottish Premiership. It's a bit early, but not much; this season's article started getting content in late February 2016, and was a redirect since September 2015. Similar redirects also already exist, such as 2017-18 Football League Championship. Nfitz (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Scottish Premiership - no realistic chance of it not occurring, or some other competition occurring in its place for which a redirect will be necessary. Fenix down (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect typically, in cases where an article is created for an upcoming season which is likely to occur, a redirect is fine. Adamtt9 (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 23:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect until the current season is over. GiantSnowman 09:37, 11 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. (non-admin closure)  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  03:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogel agriculture[edit]

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

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

This reads as WP:OR to me. Most of it is based on (now removed) predatory journals and the like Guy (Help!) 21:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a wall of text about fringey pseudoscience with lousy sourcing. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. StevenDaniels (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]