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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. A valid rationale for deletion has not been presented. For examples of valid deletion rationales, see WP:DEL-REASON. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Layout engine[edit]

Layout engine (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 cites no sources whatsoever since at least September 2015 Kellerpm (talk) 23:58, 11 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. Consensus is that this band does not meet notability guidelines. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Fortune (band)[edit]

Miss Fortune (band) (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 band, fails WP:MUSIC. Released one album. Source that's supposed to show the "critical acclaim" for their album just says the album will be streamed. Yintan  23:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources are from user submitted sites, social media, and the band's own press releases. No evidenced of third party independent coverage or notability. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails GNG DarjeelingTea (talk) 22:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't the band's history on AllMusic considered independent coverage: [1]? --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it is, but not automatically. When AllMusic was primarily a print publication it had tight criteria for inclusion. Not so much these days, evolving since it began partnering with Rovi/TiVo database for its content. While the site continues to have independent editorial oversight, their standards have dipped to list bands whose only criteria is that they have produced a product(s) that is offered for retail distribution. A band can be listed that otherwise does not meet a single qualification per WP:MUSIC. AllMusic entries as a reference need to be assessed on a case by case basis. ShelbyMarion (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was looking at the altpress.com and allmusic.com sources for a bit, but I decided that they were based on press releases by the band (and that altpress.com's reliability was also in question, seeing as it seems to exist to promote little-known bands). Thus, fails WP:MUSIC. Icebob99 (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Article has been improved since nomination and just makes the threshold. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:00, 19 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Dorothy Berry[edit]

Dorothy Berry (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 artist. Fails WP:ARTIST and WP:GNG. Note that exhibition catalogues are not independent and that the exhibition referenced was in-house. Author has conflict of interest. Flat Out (talk) 23:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep since I accepted because of the national museum collection. SwisterTwister talk 08:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I can't see the collection to which you refer, the national gallery claim is not sourced. Would you mind clarifying, if I have missed something I'll withdraw Flat Out (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I concur the author submitted a large number of artists, several of which apparently had no collections at all, I searched and this confirms she's collected by the national gallery. SwisterTwister talk 00:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very borderline wikipedia technical general notability but works being held by the NGA I suggest confirms notability. NGA holding meets WP:CREATIVE/WP:ARTIST. Editor COI is not grounds for deletion. Notability and verifiability of the article content is. And this content seems okay or fixable. Aoziwe (talk) 12:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the article makes the claim that work by an artist is in the collection of a national museum, and there are issues with verifying that claim, I would suggest a failed verification template and a discussion with the editor who made the claim, instead of an AfD nomination. But, like I said at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brigid Hanrahan, I am concerned about the lack of critical reception. Even for artist who technically meet some of the secondary notability criteria of WP:ARTIST, for example being represented in a collection, we still need someone else to write something we can base an article on. I would really like to see some in-depth reviews from reliable, independent sources, and artshub is not an independent source. Mduvekot (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Looking at WP:ARTIST#4:

"The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

a) Nope. b) No evidence of being a substantial part of a significant exhibition. c) Nope. d)No evidence of being represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. NGA holding alone does not meet criteria. (more info on the Home Sweet Home NGA collection found here and here running 11 October 2003 – 18 January 2004)

Wikipedia is not a free webhost for the collection of artist bios for the Northcote-based studio at Arts Project Australia. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and develop or draftily. This is an example of an "outsider" artist - they are generally self taught, have what some consider "naive" aesthetics. Outsider artists operate outside of the "normal" power dynamics and systems of the commercial art market, the gallery and museum system. For more info on Outsider Art see here. Their outsider status does not diminish their importance, nor creativity, but does make them difficult to receive recognition. It takes time to research these types of individuals. I've done a bit of scoping around and there are other sources/references on this artist. To my mind, what is problematic is the way the article is written - it needs improvement and structure. I vote to keep it for now. Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you have voted keep but then below you note it doesn't meet encyclopedic standards. How does the subject meet Wp:GNG or WPNARTIST? Flat Out (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment above, I have begun to work on this article to improve it and hopefully bring it to encyclopedia standards. There is information out there on this artist, but one has to dig for it. I've worked on the format of the article, adding an info box, sections, copy editing, and citations. I will continue to do so as time permits. Please be patient. In my opinion, there is a need for more representation of artists with disabilities, and women artists. Dorothy Berry is notable in her field of Outsider Art. Netherzone (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Flat Out The artist meets WP:Artist in the following ways: She is regarded as an important figure in the field of Outsider Art (see references). The person created/played a major role in creating a significant collective body of work. Her work has been acquired for major collections at the National Gallery of Australia (Accession number: NGA 2002.431.466) and MADMusée, Liège, Belgium. Two of her lithographs, are held in the collection of the Centre for Australian Art. (please see citations) There has been a book published on her work. There have been four solo exhibits of her work, and it has been included in over 30 group exhibitions. Marginalized, vernacular outsider status should not subvert historical significance.Netherzone (talk) 15:01, 14 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Harris (coach)[edit]

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

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

WP:N. Has never played for or managed a professional football team (only an assistant coach). References given don't refer to him. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 23:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability, fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 08:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails NFOOTY as has not managed senior international football nor 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) 09:21, 12 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP Engine[edit]

WP Engine (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)

Every ref is either a mere notice, or just a best place to work award or tribute from a local business journal, which is not reliable independent coverage. The use of such awards as refs implies there is nothing substantial. DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 15:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as corporate spam on a subject with no indications of notability or significance. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable by general or CORP standards. Fluff sources; independent RS lacking. DonFB (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Nothing is here! Only exist to promote itself as a directory Light2021 (talk) 04:57, 14 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. Well written article and I hope they gather enough independent sources for a future piece on them. But it lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources at present. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apes of the State[edit]

Apes of the State (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 band lacking in-depth support. References are minor local reporting and examples of songs. Fails to provide support for notability. reddogsix (talk) 22:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as I concur with the nomination, the sources are clearly their own website, and that itself shows violations of what we accept by our policies here. SwisterTwister talk 23:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete' The Houston Press piece is arguably fine as a single independent reliable source, but we require more than one. --joe decker^talk 02:43, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 10:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of most viewed Vevo videos[edit]

List of most viewed Vevo videos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a directory - VEVO views can be faked or botted, therefore the notability of this list is non-existent. No independent sources. The Banner talk 22:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – What makes this different from something like List of most viewed YouTube videos, which has survived at AFD in the past? Legit question - my stance is neutral for now. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the existence of independent coverage? Also, while YouTube has its faults, faking views is much more difficult to accomplish.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are automated views more prevalent for Vevo? There's also plenty of third party sources dedicated to the subject in the article. Sources like Bllboard, one of the most mainstream third party sources in existence for music. Sergecross73 msg me 01:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOTLINKFARM - trivial list. All references don't actually contain information regarding number of views, they just direct to the Vevo video. Ajf773 (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ajf773 - How thoroughly did you review things here? My post directly above literally debunks your second sentence - there's a Billboard article dedicated entirely around how many Vevo views a Taylor Swift video got. There's other ones in there too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – per the AFD consensus about the Youtube list of the exact same sort of thing and the fact that there are third party sources like Billboard that dedicate entire articles to this sort of thing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single AfD 4 years ago says nothing about the present opinions. And that Billboard article is based on info supplied by VEVO, not backed up by independent sources. The Banner talk 08:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are articles outside of Billboard that discuss the most viewed VEVO videos such as The Verge, The Independent, and Entertainment Tonight. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? Billboard is the third party source in this instance. Why the hell would we need 2 degrees of 3rd party reporting here? We don't require third parties to get their info from another third party. Sergecross73 msg me 18:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – There are reliable sources in this article that discuss the most viewed videos of VEVO. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 01:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – link farm / largely self-cited / pop culture trivia / subject to change. If I would have caught the YouTube discussion I might have voted delete there as well. Better late than never. : -) . K.e.coffman (talk) 07:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – The topic is notable and has been discussed repeatedly throughout the years by a variety of independant sources, including (but not limited to) [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. A simple Google search of the ‘most viewed vevo videos’ will display dozens of video results that discuss the topic in detail. It has attracted significant attention and includes reliable sources so it should not be deleted. 174.116.68.79 (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) NasssaNser (^talk/_edits) 05:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)}[reply]

Kevin Pho[edit]

Kevin Pho (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)

Searches are literally not finding anything better than either PR, interviews (regardless of wherever published) or his own authored articles and websites, none of that establishes notability itself and it's clear this currently only exists as a PR business listing; the NYT, naturally as shown, are his own authored articles as part a column, therefore that inherits him no automatic notability whatsoever and it's clear the history itself it's quite likely either the subject himself or someone involved started this PR article. While the author asked for restoration, and attempts are open to being made, there's enough to suggest an AfD is necessary to gauge the concerns and chances here. FWIW, this is what the author offered as sourcing but examining them still finds only announcements, business listings, quotes, etc. SwisterTwister talk 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I am the one who requested the restore from the G11 delete, and I am not the author of this article nor connected to the subject of the article. Medicalreporter (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: I added several reliable sources that cover the subject in various degrees of depth. There are hundreds of appearances of the subject in various outlets. I think there is little doubt that this doctor passes GNG, and I regret to say it, but this AfD and the initial G11 speedy deletion were very much so misguided. Medicalreporter (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I added a variety of sources and improved the content. Please feel free to take a look and vote now. Medicalreporter (talk) 12:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep SwisterTwister, I was wondering what research you did to determine this person is not notable? I quickly found NBCNews, AMA Wire, INewSource.org, and CNN, CNN, ISourceNews, and NBCNews are all reliable non-PR which give him significant coverage. If you look at the weakest sources which is AMA Wire, you can see that it is not written in Q&A format. ST as a sign of good faith, I would recommend you withdraw this nomination, this person is undisputedly notable. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Because they are still only announcements, mentions and similar and that's what the article contains since he's certainly not notable as an author so that section is unconvincing and everything else is simply about his speech events, company and similar. Notability is not inherited. SwisterTwister talk 17:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @SwisterTwister: Wait what? They are not announcements lets take a look at this source from the Modern Medicine Network, this is an in detailed source regarding Kevin Pho influence on the industry which he is repeatedly mentioned throughout the 7 pages article written by Ken Terry a third party source subject to editorial review. This is a reliable source by all means and certainly not an announcement. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about the acceptability of the Modern Medicine article as a source. Modern Medicine is a UBM Life Sciences publication, and is a marketing and public-relations media company, see UBM Life Sciences is a an event, information, and marketing services business. UBM is owned by PR Newswire, the press release company.--FeralOink (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though the parent company has a variety of business arms, but each of their publications lists editorial staff and writers: http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/content/about-us We cannot discredit an outlet because its parent company is multifaceted. Delta13C (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• keep There are also numerous actual books that have content related to Kevin Pho. Our subject seems to be involved with something called "Wikipedia isn't really the patient's friend" (not relevant here though). There is an independent book review about a book written by him, as well as many independent writing in journals. Certainly this passes WP:GNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — I added the source in Medical Economics that was mentioned above. The article is indeed well referenced with solid RSes, which are abundant enough to be easily apparent in web searches and Google Scholar. This AfD should be withdrawn. -Delta13C (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — This is a PR business listing. The subject is not notable, see SwisterTwister's remarks, and my comment about sources such as Medical Economics/Modern Medicine above. Pho is a blogger and is mostly cited for brief how-to's pertaining to online reputation management and social media.--FeralOink (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be specific as to how this appears to be a PR listing? The content is neutral and consistent with dozens of RSes. On the topic for which he is an expert, this article is reflective of the subject's notability. -Delta13C (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FeralOink The reasons you listed "blogger and is mostly cited for brief how-to's pertaining to online reputation management and social media" has never denied a person notability. We use sources, third party RS. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 09:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I assume this is a vast imprvement on whatever was previously deleted (I didn't see it), but there's no problem with this now. Roundly and reliably sourced, it seems to be. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 14:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Gbooks results alone reach WP:BASIC without much thought, I'm a bit mystified by this nomination. --joe decker^talk 02:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:45, 19 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. T. Canens (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TravelKhana[edit]

TravelKhana (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)

First nominated over 2 months ago by Light2021 and recently PRODed by DGG and the mistake with the first AfD was that no one actually cared to notice the sources themselves were listed as "paid advertising by the company" or "Information supplied by the company", instantly making the sources unsuitable for our policies since they're not independent, regardless of whatever or whoever, and even examining the sources that were offered at the 1st AfD find this exactly. Even WP:CORPDEPTH itself states: "Sources must not be trivial about its company activities, finances or other triviality or be published in similar sources" and that fits here, and that's even a guideline, it becomes thicker when we apply WP:NOT which then itself states "Wikipedia is not a business webhost for simple company information, activities and other contents". We cannot be misused to blatantly host such companies for their own gains simply because their PR was republished. FWIW, my own searches still found nothing but: Company financials published and republished by the company itself, company interviews, company listings, company mentions and other triviality. Hence, we never actually had substance, and it's worse when we know for a fact, and our recent AfDs show it, that these publications willingly and heavily republish the company PR at their own will. Note that one of the comments in the 1st AfD was from a now-banned advertising account, so that's something else to consider in how this article is used. Now, the other thing to consider is the fact this was nominated in October with the suggestions of "Keep and improve" yet no improvements were made, a common sign in our policies that it can't be improved hence our policies support deletion. Note, also carefully examining the history shows that over half-doze India-based accounts and IPs have started contributing, including adding its own company materials, a common sign enough. SwisterTwister talk 20:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I strongly doubt notability; the sources are indeed essentially press releases or self-published. In any case the article is an advertisement, intend to make use of w Wikipedia as an additional source of PR for the company. Either reason alone is a sound basis for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep In regard of the imputed intent let me make clear that although I re-created this article after speedy deletion, and upheld it at the previous AfD, I have no contact with this company and no form of interest in it or external knowledge of it. I am basing my !vote solely on repeated coverage in national newspapers as listed in the first AfD, and if such coverage is now deemed to be merely "press releases or self-published ... republishing the company's PR", are we singling out the national press of India as incapable of editorial control, or are we now denying the relevance for notability of any coverage of commercial firms in any national newspaper anywhere? If national newspapers no longer count as independent reliable sources when assessing notability, I think we should all be told: Noyster (talk), 20:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  An article which ends with a bold italic tagline saying "Travelkhana tracks trains to ensure that meals are delivered at the right time and the right seat" is not the work of an editorially sound process. That's not because it's from India, it's because obvious PR is obvious. --joe decker^talk 02:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON & WP:PROMO. For example, the article states that the company "claims to have served meals to 383,921 train passengers". The fact that the article replicates company claims suggests that it's both too soon for the subject to have an article and that the article existence serves to promote the business: i.e. there's no independent info on it, and this material can equally be housed on the company web site. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Promotional, and while we can debate whether a few of Noyster's references are lightly-warmed over PR pieces, I don't see WP:CORPDEPTH. --joe decker^talk 02:17, 19 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 00:30, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Healthcare Leadership Academy[edit]

The Healthcare Leadership Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article is promotional in nature, written by a user with a COI. The sources seem to only be about the NHS and not actually about this organization. Article fails WP:GNG  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - cannot find any proof online that this group actually exists. Article is written like a screed and is blatantly biased. Delete based on WP:GNG and WP:PROMO. Rogermx (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sources appear unavailable. Siuenti (talk) 18:47, 18 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. No real consensus on whether to redirect (or where to), but I don't foresee much trouble for any editor who wishes to boldly implement a redirect somewhere appropriate. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misty Isle[edit]

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

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

Notability is not established. TTN (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Extremely minor element in D&D. There's not a single source present in this article, and searches bring up nothing of note, just fansites and forum posts. Most of the non-D&D related results are referring to the island of Skye, whose article confirms that this was a name used for it, so perhaps the article space should be used as a redirect to the real-world location instead. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Flanaess. BOZ (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't often argue with other people's AFD comments, but in this case, I have to ask. When the article has zero sources, not even any of the usual primary D&D sources, and, as I mentioned, could be useful as a redirect to an actual, real world location that goes by the name, what rationale are you arguing here to either Keep or Merge? 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good question. Grayfell (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect to Skye, or at the very least create a dab page. I suspect there will be other "Misty Isle"s in fiction. Josh Milburn (talk) 03:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, there are "Misty Isles" in the Prince Valiant comic series. Rogermx (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/redirect - No sources at all, no article. I'm sure a source or two could be found, but they would almost certainly be from TSR/Wizards with no outside input, making them useless for GNG. Grayfell (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing as consensus is this is not a notable topic, I've redirected it to Skye. Feel free to make it a disambiguation instead, if you prefer.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 04:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Yellow Diamond: Please don't redirect articles that are at AfD, especially when there are other options proposed. ansh666 05:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that a guideline? I thought it said anyone could redirect articles like that.Yellow Diamond Δ Direct Line to the Diamonds 22:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not (the closest thing would probably be WP:BRD), but it's common courtesy to leave it until the AfD is over unless it's completely uncontroversial. ansh666 23:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @J Milburn: Is Skye commonly referred to as "Misty Isle"? From that article, it's one proposed etymology, but I don't think that's really enough for a redirect there, and a web search turns up mostly generic companies and only a few references to Skye (a local company and a travel article). Then again, I'm about 1/3 of the globe away, so it could be a more local usage that I haven't heard before. There don't seem to be any other notable (not even WP:notable) Misty Isles so I'm not convinced a dab is the right idea here. ansh666 05:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't tell you how common it is, but a Google Books search suggests that the name is used occasionally. Do you propose an alternative course of action? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really know. If it is used occasionally, and there isn't much else to point it at, then the redirect is probably the best course. ansh666 23:44, 18 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. T. Canens (talk) 10:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sia (software)[edit]

Sia (software) (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 product (software) of an equally non-notable company. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While this article does have no references it was tagged with a PROD and then an AfD within a relatively short amount of time of the article being created (hours), not giving the editor much time to improve the article (they did remove the PROD so they must be aware of the issues). I would suggest userfication here to allow the editor due time, to avoid coming across as bitey. Garchy (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. As the article is less then 24 hours old, let's give some time to get up to standards. Sario528 (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in blockchain storage projects, Sia is considered one of the major players and is very well known. robvanmieghem (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)— robvanmieghem (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

comment They are well known by who? Nothing in the article indicates this. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Siacoin is a great piece of software that allows people to share files easily in an anonymous way free from surveillance. It is a leading project in its industry and has partnered with the HP minebox project which is quite big. Sia his constantly being worked on and has a large community.alexpimania (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— alexpimania (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Delete A WP:BEFORE internet search has not produced any substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. There is a company that uses a similar name but it's not the same as the subject of this article. I've noted that two of the users above, robvanmieghem and alexpimania are Single Purpose accounts working with the creator of the article. As a side note, the speed of filing an AfD has no bearing on any discussion - I don't know how long people really expect articles about non-notable subjects to remain on Wikipedia but there's no minimum cooling off period, particularly in the case of an article that's promotional in nature. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, The sia website is sia.tech. It is running and there are currently hundreds of users of Sia. There will soon be a lot more thoug as a result of the new minebox collaboration.alexpimania (talk) 2:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• Keep Sia is a notable application and cloud storage network. It is the first, fully functional decentralized, peer-to-peer, zero-knowledge cloud storage network. The complexities of building this platform cannot be underestimated. The lead-developers of the software, Nebuluous Inc., was recently highlighted as a Top 2017 Boston area startup. They received $750,000 in venture capital seed funding in 2016. One of the lead-developers, David Vorvick, is a respected authority on blockchain technology and has spoken at several conferences on topics such as distributed storage and blockchain optimizations. None of the article authors, including myself, are affiliated with Nebuluous Inc in any capacity. Pmknutsen (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how do you know that the other authors aren't affiliated with the company unless you're all working together on this article, about a niche software product that isn't mentioned in any reliable sources? That's very strange. Exemplo347 (talk) 10:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, your assertion that Sia is a "niche" software that isn't mentioned in "any reliable source" is provably false. You can find media coverage of Sia here, here and here among other places. I can only assume that your internet search came up empty as a search for "Sia" only shows hits on a popular singer called "Sia". I know that the other author is not affiliated with Nebuluous Inc because s/he is not listed as an employee. I am not affiliated with Nebuluous Inc. either, in any capacity whatsoever. I have not been paid by them, or asked by them, to contribute to this article. Other than this, your assertion that I am lying about my non-affiliation with Nebuluous Inc. is offensive and comes off as bitey. pmknutsen (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, let me get "bitey" out of the way - that's for new editors and you've been here since 2015. Secondly, you have access to a list of employees but you have no connection to the company? Exemplo347 (talk) 13:37, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is public information (if you care to look). For company employees, see here, here, and here. Which one of us is either of those people? pmknutsen (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have no way of knowing how many people work for or on behalf of this company, and you have no way of knowing who another editor does or doesn't work for, or on behalf of. Let's just leave it there. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While I was initially supportive of userfication it has become clear this is being used solely for promotion, and User:alexpimania has been blocked indefinitely for being a spam/advertising-only account. Garchy (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per above comments. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rezonansowy: do you mind clarifying which comment(s) you are referring to? As Exemplo347 pointed out, there seem to be a number of SPAs commenting in this AfD that aren't using actual deletion/keep criteria, so I'm confused as to what this would fall under? Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: Sure. I mean that the present shape of this article after cleanup is IMO enough fine-sourced to be kept as a stub. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 21:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well color me doubly confused because you originally said keep before before the article was cleaned up... so which keep was it that you agreed with as the article previously stood? (also I realized after editing this how rude it may have come off, wasn't my intention, just confused as to how you agree with the article as it currently stands being subject to your original keep.) Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right. I wanted to clean it myself, but another editor has made it already. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 23:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure what notability is established based on the sources given.
  1. https://github.com/NebulousLabs/Sia/blob/master/LICENSE - the license for Sia which is not coverage and certainly doesn't establish anything about Sia/Nebulous in the way of notability.
  2. https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/nebulous-llc#/entity - This establishes that it exists.
  3. https://nxtforum.org/alternate-cryptocurrencies/sia-official-nxt-thread/ - a forum thread which is the equivalent of a description of the product and a press release.
  4. https://github.com/NebulousLabs/Sia/releases - releases of Sia. Again, no one is debating the existence of the product or company.
  5. http://sia.tech/assets/globals/sia.pdf a write up by the creators
  6. http://us12.campaign-archive1.com/?u=28542349724534dc599e8f3e0&id=a6ab62aecb a generic mailing list template FROM the creators of Sia?
  7. https://minebox.io - i'm not even sure what this reference is supposed to establish.

I'm really not trying to be WP:BITEy here but not a single keep in this thread has explained why this actually belongs on Wikipedia using actual inclusion criteria. The entire reason I nominated this is because it did not have credible claims of notability and despite several more edits and addition of references, this still remains the case. Not a single one of these sources establishes anything more than the existence of Sia. And I'm sorry, Sario528, articles are never 'finished', especially tech articles but initial inclusion should at least meet the bare minimum inclusion criteria and this doesn't. Perhaps it should be moved to a draft until notability can actually be established. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrissymad: I have to agree with you, this article reeks of promotional tones - robvanmieghem, alexpimania, and Exemplo347 User:pmknutsen may not be employees of the company, but the fact that they know so much about each other and what they are collaborating on seems to point towards an apparent conflict of interest in their editing of the article. Not only does this organization not appear to fulfill notability guidelines, but the manner in which the article has been created (and the content itself) provide no substance or positive contribution to the encyclopedia. These editors can argue all they want that Sia deserves an article (the burden of proof is on them, and I haven't found considerable proof of notability on my own) - but something they cannot defend is the fact that they present a conflict of interest and should not be involved in the creation of this article - their comments (multiple from each) show that they are personally vested somehow in this article creation. Garchy (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cough Cough @Garchy: - Not me! :) Exemplo347 (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! Wrong user tag, sorry :-) Garchy (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I don't see any sources which would go toward demonstrating notability under the general notability guideline. In fact, I think there's an argument that it qualifies for speedy deletion, criteria A7. --joe decker^talk 02:09, 19 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of inline hockey competitions[edit]

List of inline hockey tournaments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of inline hockey competitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unnecessary. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. Also propose to add List of inline hockey tournaments to the AfD or as a separate AfD for the same reasons. Ajf773 (talk) 04:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ajf773: done. Thanks. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:20, 13 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 National Collegiate Roller Hockey Association. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Collegiate Roller Hockey League[edit]

Southwest Collegiate Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Western Collegiate Roller Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Midwest Collegiate Roller Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eastern Collegiate Roller Hockey Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Southeastern Collegiate Roller Hockey League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable leagues/associations. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all, with an optional very limited merge if anybody wants it, to National Collegiate Roller Hockey Association. We don't need whole unreferenced articles about all these sub-organisations but the main article can mention that they exist and maybe a tiny bit more than that if there are references to support it. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:57, 13 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2005–06 ECRHA Regional Championships[edit]

2005–06 ECRHA Regional Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

2006–07 ECRHA Regional Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2007–08 ECRHA Regional Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2010 ECRHA Regional Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2011–12 NCRHA Division II season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

List of ECRHA Division I Regional Champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:GNG. The only non-trivial coverage I could find comes from nonindependent sources. This !vote very much mimics my !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006–07 NCRHA Division I season. Icebob99 (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:03, 18 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2006–07 NCRHA Division I season[edit]

2009–10 NCRHA Division I season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2010–11 NCRHA Division I season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2011–12 NCRHA Division I season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2006–07 NCRHA Division I season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it fails WP:GNG. The only non-trivial coverage I could find came from nonindependent sources. In addition, I think that if there are other articles like this one, they should probably be deleted too, unless they have some other reason for notability. Icebob99 (talk) 14:58, 16 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Volleyball at the 2013 Games of the Small States of Europe – Women's team rosters[edit]

Volleyball at the 2013 Games of the Small States of Europe – Women's team rosters (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 list of rosters predominately with red links. The notability is also questionable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating the following for the same reason:[reply]

Volleyball at the 2015 Games of the Small States of Europe – Women's team rosters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2009 European Volleyball Championship of the Small Countries Division – Women's team rosters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2011 European Volleyball Championship of the Small Countries Division – Women's team rosters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2013 European Volleyball Championship of the Small Countries Division – Women's team rosters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)}

• Delete – rosters as well? How much of this is there? Laurdecl ^talk 01:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurdecl: There shouldn't be as many roster articles out there. However, for the Olympics and the major continental sporting events its okay imo to have these articles. In this case this is not a major continental sporting event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. WP:SPORTSEVENT and WP:NOTINHERETED. Ajf773 (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 18 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Wright[edit]

Jared Wright (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 porn actor, fails PORNBIO and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (was No vote yet but leaning delete). We have another actor-won-an-award-but-sources-are-crap porn bio. While previous AfD debates for Grabby Award winners have resulted in keeps, there is absolutely zero reliably-sourced information in this article. Trivial mentions found in the porn trade press. 100% GNG and WP:BASIC fail. PORNBIO claim is tenuous. Deleting this without prejudice against creating an article for the Colorado State Rep. by the same name sounds reasonable to me. • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• On further consideration of BLP issues, I say get rid of this. If reliable sources ever emerge for this performer, we are better off starting over. • Gene93k (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Gene93k's sourcing analysis is impeccable. I would add that the Grabby Award is not an industry award, as required by PORNBIO. It is given out by a local giveaway magazine in Chicago (which is pretty big as local goes, but still local). The magazine is marginally notable at best. (The award was originated by a different local magazine, which has stopped covering porn). Both of the awarding magazines were general interest/entertainment magazines aimed at the LGBT community, not porn industry publications. The limitation of PORNBIO to industry awards came in 2012, one of the outcomes of several months of discussion which tightened up PORNBIO substantially. So far as I can tell, all the !keep AFDs turning on the Grabby Award came under the older, less restrictive version of PORNBIO. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- A7 material. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Update. An article for the Colorado politician by the same name was just created at Jared Wright (politician). If the porn star's article is deleted, the politician's article should be moved to this title. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per complete lack of credible sourcing. Lepricavark (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable performer in pornography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom.--John Cline (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. While there is a case for deleting this article under WP:BIODEL this applies to relatively unknown, non-public figures. What is a non-public figure (and why would Wikipedia have an article about them anyway?) Our guide is the essay at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual which suggests several helpful criteria, all of which indicate that this is a high profile person. They have given interviews to major news outlets, sought publicity for their books, they hold a position of influence in research. They do not meet the general definition of a low-profile individual: A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. While I'm sympathetic to the right to disappear I think this person has put their head too far above the parapet to maintain that right. As to the claims of libel, the one-line reference to a controversy is reasonably sourced and the source (rather than Wikipedia) is probably the better target for any action. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Henry Gee[edit]

Henry Gee (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 the subject of this page I am nominating it for deletion on the grounds of lack of notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cromercrox (talk • contribs) 18:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to "have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other" wp:basic and more so under WP:NACADEMIC for being a senior editor at nature and fits under WP:CREATIVE. Seems pretty clear to me that we should keep this article. -Pengortm (talk) 03:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 15:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete The article is in a decent state and passes our usual standard of notability, but we could delete it under WP:BIODEL if nobody objects. – Joe (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, reluctantly, per E.M.Gregory's comments. Given that multiple editors have argued to keep on the basis that Gee is a "public figure", and the article itself is well sourced and has a long history, I don't think we can apply WP:BIODEL here after all. However, I think this is a good example of why we could do to strengthen that guideline. The "right to be forgotten" (for low-profile individuals) that cromercrox mentions below is something we should be protecting per WP:BLP. – Joe (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . I read too quickly and did not notice that it was the subject of the article who was requesting deletion. I am not certain whether to consider Gee a public figure or not, but am leaning slightly towards that which gives me the week keep. -Pengortm (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

updated from weak keep to keep based on below discussion. -Pengortm (talk) 03:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. at subject's request. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 12 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep as no one has actually stated there's explicit need and the nominator could be mistaken about our policies for notability (see WP:PROF#Criteria and he is in fact notable, a major book by a major publisher. So, unless there's specification, there is no "non-notability". SwisterTwister talk 05:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think he passes WP:AUTHOR (but I note that there are currently 16 senior editors in biology alone for Nature and that it is editor-in-chief that normally passes WP:PROF #8). However, if we don't honor the subject's request to delete the entry, I hope that we could at least consider removing the image. It's a picture from a public place (a pub), but I hope that we could use our common sense to determine that this isn't a professional reflection on the subject. EricEnfermero (Talk) 09:14, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Oh, dear. In this privacy-deprived age my sympathies are entirely with Henry Gee. We used to have the right to lead private lives. The problem is that Gee doesn't lead such a life, at least not professionally. He has published widely reviewed books. Holding the job of senior Editor of Nature (journal) is notable by definition, even though the post has been a lightening rod for controversy since Darwin v. Huxley. Unfortunately, because he is a senior editor he has been at the center of controversy, unpleasant controversy not related to misbehavior on his part, but simply because of the status he holds. I wish that we could in good conscious comply with his request, or that by taking him off Wikipedia we could give him back his privacy. It's a pity, but there it is.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BIODEL. Notability is a condition for an article, not a requirement for one. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but neither do we delete articles about public figures.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What policy is that? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The policy cited: WP:BIODEL, which applies only to "relatively unknown, non-public figures," a description that does not fit Henry Gee, who is a well-known.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I have started an expand/source on the distinguished career of this scientist and author of both scholarly and popular books. The difficulty is not only the plethora of sources, but the complexity of a career with such a wide range of interests. In the early years of this century, for example, I have just discovered the marvelously erudite and wide ranging essays he used ot write for The Guardian. then there are the books, not only the scholarly books, but the Stephen Jay Gould-style explications of science fo r a popular audience. Not to mention his remarkable work on Tolkien. The controversies turn out to be so minor compared with the distinction of the career.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't decided yet which way to go on this one, but I checked both the history of the article and of Mr. Gee, posting as Cromercrox , and as an I.P. address, and noticed that it was Gee himself who created the article, then attempted to remove information on the Isis controversy when it was posted. Maybe delete based on conflict of interest would also apply here. ABF99 (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As noted below, the article was created by Athaenara, not Gee, and he appears to have only edited it occasionally to make minor corrections and remove BLP-violating material, which is more or less in line with WP:COISELF. Besides, COI editing isn't usually considered a reason to delete an article. – Joe (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is me, Henry Gee. To correct a misperception, I did not create the entry on myself. I was very surprised to see it, and wish it had never appeared, as its only function appears to be as a magnet for trolls. Unable to persuade Wikipedia to remove it, I have at times encouraged friends to post silly things on it. I do not believe I am notable enough for a wikipedia entry, and apart from that I'd rather like Wikipedia to adopt the 'right to be forgotten', if requested, adopted by some internet sources, I believe.cromercrox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.243.114 (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My mistake and my apologies to Mr. Gee. The subject seems to be on the borderline of notability. He has indeed written and published a lot, but I'm not finding enough written about him to require a biography here. ABF99 (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unfortunately for the nominator, he is notable enough for an article. Not sure how the "right to be forgotten" could be handled on Wikipedia. Perhaps this could be brought to the attention of WMF for discussion? I'll see if I can figure out the appropriate way to handle this — Iadmc♫^talk  07:07, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add—as it turns out, the WikiMedia Foundation is pretty much against the "right to be forgotten": [19], so they may not be too interested/sympathetic — Iadmc♫^talk  07:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, it is an EU law and the WMF and its servers are mostly in the USA (with a few in the the Netherlands, true) so I'm not sure it applies — Iadmc♫^talk  07:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have emailed WMF Legal asking them to comment on this — Iadmc♫^talk  07:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is me, Henry Gee, again. If an article is visible in Britain, it is subject to the laws of the United Kingdom, including libel, irrespective of its source and the location of its servers. And while the United Kingdom is still in the European Union, then EU law presumably applies too. Meanwhile I thank the assembled Wikipedians for taking this problem seriously. cromercrox — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.243.114 (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • cromercrox: Libel made by Wikipedians about living people is not tolerated on Wikipedia. See WP:BLPREMOVE and especially WP:BLPSOURCES. It should be deleted immediately without discussion. Not sure of the legal position re visibilty, though. Hopefully WMF will clarify the situation soon — Iadmc♫^talk  10:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pedrolia Martin Sikayun[edit]

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

Fails notability. Questionable tier 1 apperance in international soccer match and none of these athletes compete(d) in a professional league as determined by WP:Football Note all these articles are created by SVG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Nurul Hamira Yusma Mohd Yusri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phu Pwint Khaing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

May Sabai Phoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fadathul Najwa Nurfarahain Azmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - some of these players have full internationals, such as Norsuriani Mazli, Usliza Usman, Jaciah Jumilis, Luisa Marques, Nurul Hamira Yusma Mohd Yusri, and Engracia Fernandes all in a single match last year [20]] as part of the 2016 AFF Women's Championship. I recommend cancelling this AFD, researching the players properly, and listing any remaining players separately. Nfitz (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria." - Please demonstrate how each of these articles have received significant coverage. All of these fail part 2 of notability set by WP:Football and thuse should be deleted. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many (if not all) meet part 1, so part 2 is not relevant. Part 1 explicitly says 'Players who have played in, and managers who have managed in any Tier 1 International Match ... are notable'. You are violating a long-standing consensus. Nfitz (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The notability guideline could be a lot more expansive on what a Tier 1 int'l match is. But if AFF Women's Championship is actually "Tier 1," then this nomination just isn't going to succeed, as WP:NFOOTBALL clearly states that just criterion 1 would be enough. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One would hope that everyone editing in this topic area, is aware of what the FIFA Tier 1 definition is. It's simply 'any International Match in which both of the teams participating are the “A” Representative Teams of the Members concerned, or an International Match involving a Scratch Team.'. That the matches are tier 1, can be confirmed on FIFA's website. If you check out Timor [21], and click on Women's, you quickly see that that the most recent match was the match against Malaysia, which I provided the summary above; FIFA doesn't list Tier 2 matches here (which is why the match in the same tournament against the Australia women's national under-20 soccer team on July 29th isn't shown). Nfitz (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and that's why I don't edit in this area, for that very reason. But you've made it clear enough to me as a layman that these international country vs country women's matches are tier 1. I may not know soccer football, but I know how to read policy and these women players do seem to meet WP:NFOOTBALL's 1st criterion. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per national team appearances. Hmlarson (talk) 00:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per national team appearances, recommend cancelling this AFD, researching the players properly, and listing any remaining players separately.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 08:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes NFOOTY, has played senior international football, in a fully professional league or in a match in the competition proper (i.e. not qualifying rounds) of a cup competition which involved two teams both from FPLs. Fenix down (talk) 09:23, 18 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014–15 NCRHA Division I season[edit]

2014–15 NCRHA Division I season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced. Trivial and non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. Also see WP:SPORTCRIT. Full of redlinks. Created as part of a large swath of pages by a single user who has since left. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unreferenced article about a non-notable amateur sports event. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it fails WP:GNG. Icebob99 (talk) 15:05, 16 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 speedily deleted under CSD G4. Non-admin closure. Safiel (talk) 18:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bayt.com[edit]

Bayt.com (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 subject does not appear to satisfy WP:NCORP. Tagged for notability since 2015. Safiel (talk) 17:53, 11 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Urchin SCM[edit]

Urchin SCM (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 free software project is non-notable: it hasn't received any notice from or coverage in reliable sources, so it's impossible to write an encyclopedic article about it. Prod was declined by the article's creator, likely also the author of the software. Υπογράφω (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain what is meant by "Prod was declined by the article's creator". I have actively monitored the article and edited it to address all of the issues raised including a disclosure of my interest in this subject. Martin Halliday 17:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This means that somebody tagged the article for deletion using the "PROD" procedure and that you removed this tag. Once a PROD tag has been removed (and everybody can remove such a tag, including the article creator) it cannot be reinstated. As you did not include a single reference with your article, Υπογράφω apparently decided to open a deletion discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The article does not have a single reference (apart from a link to the source code on github) and a Google search does not produce any hits beyond WP itself. Does not meet WP:GNG. --Randykitty (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I added three more references. You can see from the NuGet stats that about 850 people have downloaded the Urchin Client software. I am

not sure how big this number needs to be before this is considered notable enough to be included on WP. From the great feedback I received, I know that lots of people are enjoying the benefits of using this software and I expect this popularity to continue. Martin Halliday 19:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The number of downloads doesn't matter much if at all. What matters is if the software has been noted, in the sense that reliable sources independent of the subject have written about it in depth. The "references" that you added are just listings and do not contribute to notability at all. --Randykitty (talk) 08:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If these are the criteria then I agree that it does not belong here. Go ahead and delete it. Martin Halliday 21:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. I would almost venture out to say this is just advertisement, but its open sourced, so I guess I can't say that.  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 20:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, you can say it. Pecuniary motives are not the only reason that people try to advertise something. We have people pushing anything from fringe science to religion to political views to their favorite garage band, so why not a free software package that they have created... I originally looked at it to see whether speedy deletion as spam (G11) applied, but I don't think it's really very promotional enough for that. --Randykitty (talk) 08:38, 12 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Albania at the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m)[edit]

Albania at the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) (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)

Nations at the xxx pages are usually reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD [22], "they are all a rehash of a single source. National results for events that are borderline notable themselves. Even there there is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable." Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Also nominating these for the same reasons:[reply]

Argentina at the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Australia at the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Lithuania at the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Turkey at the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

United States at the 2010 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough for this kind of article. It's not even the primary world swimming championship. Smartyllama (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:SPORTSEVENT. Individual notability per country is not inhereted just because the event might be (and questionably).Ajf773 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:31, 16 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iran at the 2013 Islamic Solidarity Games[edit]

Iran at the 2013 Islamic Solidarity Games (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 sporting event to have nation pages. Also unreferenced. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC) Also adding this article for the same reasons (it is referenced by one source however):[reply]

Turkey at the 2013 Islamic Solidarity Games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not notable enough for this kind of article. Smartyllama (talk) 01:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Renata (talk) 02:31, 16 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

O'Neill Park[edit]

O'Neill Park (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. all I could find coverage for is the same name park in Broken Hill, Fresno and Ireland. Oppose redirect also for same reason. Parks are not inherently notable, nor do I see it being notable for hosting an amateur team. LibStar (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Don't see any indication this could possibly be notable. There seem to be others listed in the template at the bottom of the article, such as Middleton Park, Yagoona that are similar. MB 03:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect this and others to an encyclopedic List of parks and reserves in Bankstown City. Cannot find anything at all to indicate notability in its own right. Aoziwe (talk) 13:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what is the point of creating a list of non notable parks in a municipality? LibStar (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and a redirect is inappropriate, as there is at least 4 parks of the same name. LibStar (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is a good thing. So I would then go for a DAB page with a link to an expanded parks and reserves section in Bankstown City#Parks. 11:58, 13 January 2017 (UTC) For example:

City of Bankstown actually no longer exists. LibStar (talk) 12:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and you will note Bankstown City isn't even the correct name. It was City of Bankstown referring to the municipality of Bankstown having city status. And creating all this pathway for a non notable park that is actually in Yagoona. LibStar (talk) 12:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The name is not important here - it was just a sample suggestion. Cheers Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is as you're confusing a municipality with a city. And secondly wanting to redirect a park article to an entity that no longer exists. That is extremely confusing .LibStar (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Aoziwe (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

if you are supporting DAB page the current page and its history must be first deleted. LibStar (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Seems a typical neighbourhood park with no particular notability. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Insignificant local park. Unlikely search term on Wikipedia, so would oppose a DAB page. Just simple delete. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:46, 16 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luan Muça[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. I was only able to find any sources that discuss the subject in any detail. - MrX 14:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (and salt (given repeated re-creations) - does not appear to have significant coverage from secondary sources. Neutrality^talk 02:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:TNT Delete. That's the third time this page is created. Twice has it been speedied per WP:G11 (promo); its current incarnation still has plenty of WP:PEACOCKs. The current sourcing (a mere passing mention) only supports the very last line of this BLP. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The quality of the sources used to prove notability has come into question, but consensus is strongly in favor of keeping the article. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David S. LaForce[edit]

David S. LaForce (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 artist; fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO. Some conflict of interest concerns. Mikeblas (talk) 13:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep as well-known genre artist. I fixed the one Nerd Trek citation, and here's what else I'm finding. Tier 1: [23] [24] Tier 2: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]. Jclemens (talk) 10:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jclemens, and there is one other RS in the article already, the Chattanooga Times as previously provided by Paul Erik. BOZ (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article needs to be expanded and improved - not deleted. Diesel is well known as a cartographer who gave various different D&D campaign setting maps a distinctive style, as if they were created by fictional people within that setting. I'll see if I can find some people who can point me at interviews, so that I can add some citations. Big Mac (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have no opinion at the moment on the notability of the topic, but I just want to point out that not a single one of those sources brought up by Jclemens can be considered a reliable source. We have, in order, a random guy's personal blog, a "guest announcement" for a very minor con, a random listing of his name and birthdate, a Facebook post, another page that lists nothing but the barest minimum of his personal information, his Tumblr page, an official D&D page that mentions him exactly one time and says nothing except "this is a picture he drew", and a random group of trivia questions in which his name happens to appear once. Whether or not this guy is decided to be notable, these sources should not be used to establish it, and should certainly not be added to the article in any way. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you want to actually engage in conversation, register. But, to humor you, this is actually a pretty good indicator of pre-Internet notability for a game artist. The facebook post is about him, not by him, and made by the premier convention targeted at gamers who played during the era his art was published. None of this is "challenged or likely to be challenged" so publication in the New York Times or other higher circulation media is not required. And since he already has two independent, reliable sources, none of these actually have to be reliable for the GNG to be met with respect to this artist. Jclemens (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you are humoring an IP doesn't make their point any less valid, and shouldn't be used to imply they are not engaging in conversation. The underlying point is correct: None of those are reliable. Nobody is denying that he exists, and is an artist, so links like MyHeritage are totally pointless. BLPs need reliable, independent sources, and notability needs substantial, independent sources. Not primary source, not social media. If they are not usable in the article, they are not usable to prove notability, and introducing them here is a distraction. Grayfell (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Multiple independent sources in the article before considering the validity of anything that Jclemens proffered suggests that is does, in fact, meet WP:GNG - Sangrolu (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I don't see any reliable independent sources. Independent sources are needed for articles, especially BLPs. I don't know if Nerd Talk is reliable, but regardless, interviews are not independent. A list of works is not substantial enough. I don't have access to the Chattanooga Times Free Press article, but if all it does is support that he worked on early D&D stuff, that's pretty weak. None of the sources presented by Jclemens are usable. Grayfell (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it for a while, I think his body of work implies WP:ARTIST, but independent sources are still lacking. He isn't credited as the primary author/artist for these modules, and being one of an ensemble means that sources need to be held to a higher standard. Grayfell (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I have tried to expand the article and provide more depth, give some indication of the wide variety of "old school" TSR publications he helped to create, and broaden the wiki's base of sources, as well as provide a variety of 3rd party reviewers commenting on his artwork and his importance. I hope this addresses the question of notability, and hope that further work by editors will strengthen this article even more. Guinness323 (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those sources were passing mentions or totally unusable blogs. We shouldn't use self-published sources for a BLP, and they do nothing to establish notability. Grayfell (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While some of the 3rd-party commentary you eliminated was from blogs, you have also excised third-party reviewers writing for various industry publications that spoke directly to the quality of his artwork: Jim Bambra, White Dwarf; Elisabeth Barrington, Space Gamer; Keith Baker, Dungeon magazine. These are good secondary sources, I am not sure what the rationale for elimination has been. Even so, I believe notability as TSR's staff cartographer has been established. Guinness323 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dungeon Magazine is not independent. This ranking was just as much the company promoting its own products to foster customer engagement as it was commentary on the adventures themselves. The Space Gamer review was of one module, and described his work as "on par with other art from TSR". That seems pretty thin, to me, and it points to a deeper problem. The article for Space Gamer has no reliable independent sources, so we're providing the reader with no way to assess how significant or reliable this mention in a review is. Exactly the same as with White Dwarf (magazine), although the mention is more substantial. Most of these gaming article present knowledge that the subjects are important, but we cannot take that on faith. This enthusiasm gamers have for sharing lore is commendable, but when its handled like this it's alienating to people who aren't already involved in the culture, and frustrating to people who want a straightforward overview of a topic, which is the whole point of Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:22, 16 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Smile Please (company)[edit]

Smile Please (company) (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 has been unsourced for over 10 years, and is not independently notable to begin with. There is nothing to even merge with the Nobuo Uematsu article, so this one should just be redirected there instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 12:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- no notability and no sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Light2021 (talk) 20:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Nobuo_Uematsu#Freelancer (2004–present) as a valid search term, where it is mentioned by name. Likely could have been redirected there with little fanfare. czar 10:01, 18 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technology as a Service[edit]

Technology as a Service (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)

To the extent this can be sourced at all, it fails WP:SYNTH. Deprodded. Siuenti (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Reads like a synthesized essay. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Joshualouie711^talk 21:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even English. Speedy? W Nowicki (talk) 00:21, 13 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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vaibhav Saxena[edit]

Vaibhav Saxena (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)

Potential WP:GNG issues and this article was previously deleted for reasons relating to that and WP:PROMO. The creator is/was a WP:SPA and I've already removed two citations that had the same quirky newspaper headline but were allegedly published years apart - neither exist in the newspapers' archives.

The MTV bio source is very odd and note that the publisher, Viacom, says "This site contains content from artists, fans, and writers from around the internet in it's natural form". Another citation - for "Radio Mantra Supersinger Contest 2016". Inext (in Hindi). Gorakhpur. 11 June 2009.") is plain illogical - a 2016 contest reported in 2009.

I am concerned about the validity of all of the citations, most of which apparently existed in 2009 and the remainder of which seem not to be in English or online, other than one on YouTube. That they are neither is not a bar but given the past history of this article I am concerned about its recreation. Sitush (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or stubify, essentially due to its promotional nature. There are a couple of sources which would a priori be reliable, except for the issue raised by Sitush; the other sources I'm less certain of. More importantly, the majority of the article is not sourced, and is full of puffery. I also wish the image was not one that resembled a facebook profile picture. Vanamonde (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. These sources just don't cut the mustard, and while Google turns up quite a lot of alternatives, none of them are any better. Admittedly it's hard to weed through the self-published and promo material sources, so there may be something there worthy of the name "reliable source", but I haven't found it. Yunshui ^雲_水 13:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:48, 12 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 and redirect to Vestergaard. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mikkel Vestergaard Frandsen[edit]

Mikkel Vestergaard Frandsen (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 currently intermixes the person and the company she owns. I can suggest WP:TNT instead of a full delete in the best case. Devopam (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and redirect to Vestergaard glorious self promotion but company is notable. LibStar (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the company as a plausible search term. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 20:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dorothy King[edit]

Dorothy King (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)

Two reasons for nominating for deletion.

Firstly, King is surely not notable enough to warrant a wikipedia biography. Her written work is neither significant nor prolific - there are countless academics and indeed students, who have published more opinion pieces/blog articles etc., most of whom also don't warrant a wiki biography. Additionally, she appears to have stopped publishing - her blog is inactive, her twitter is private and she hasn't published academic work or opinion-pieces for some years. She doesn't appear to be working as an archaeologist (or in a relevant/linked field).

Secondly, what there is of her biography reads more like a fluffed up promotional piece. There is absolutely no actual information on her career such as where and when she did her PhD, where she has been employed, what sites she has excavated or worked on - or indeed anything (again) to justify her biography. There is also no relevant or interesting personal information - nothing on childhood, significant relationships, family, achievements - in short, once again, no detail that would support her being significant enough for a wiki bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.172.153.147 (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC) — [[User:(({1))}|(({1))}]] ([[User talk:(({1))}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/(({1))}|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I completed this AfD for an anonymous editor, the above nomination statement is copied from the article's talk page. – Joe  (talk) 09:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 10:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Although the previous AfD in 2009 was a snow keep, the subject hasn't attracted sustained coverage since. Her book on the Elgin Marbles appears to have prompted a flurry of media appearances, but she hasn't remained in the public eye (with a couple of exceptions: [31][32]). Some of the sources alluded to in the last AfD also seem to have disappeared, so I think addressing the content problems raised by the nominator would be difficult. As far as I can tell she doesn't have an academic career so WP:PROF is moot. – Joe (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NOTTEMPORARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as additional sources not related to the Elgin marbles book have been provided. – Joe (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/ Userfy Subject fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:PROF, and WP:ANYBIO. For anyone that claims the coverage of her passes GNG, I counter that this reportage is about the Elgin Marbles so she would be disqualified under WP:BLP1E. When you take away the stuff she's written there's nothing left to hang notability on. I'd be happy for the closing admin to put this in my userspace as I have a soft spot for historian biographies. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per WP:HEYMANN. I have added a number of sources to the article, which needs improvement. However, coverage is hardly limited to a "flurry" at the time her book was published in 2006. I added a long The Daily Telegraph profile article from 2003. And several reviews of her book in major media. As many of the sources say, she is unusual and controversial. But undeniably notable as can be easily established from the sources now on the page or by searching her name along with keywords like "elgin marbles" and "archaeology".E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• also checked JSTOR and added a brief academic consideration of her argument in a book review of an Ethics book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Just added a long New York Times article about her 2001 efforts to block construction of an Olympic facility at the site of the Battle of Marathon. She's been in the news so much and for so many years that's it's hard to unpack all of the controversies.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for adding sources, but don't you think you're slightly overselling them? The only NYT article cited is a page long and mentions King once. As far as I can tell, with the exception of the odd quote and the 2003 Telegraph article, all the sources are still about her book on the Elgin marbles. Perhaps we ought to have an article on the book, but King herself does not meet WP:SUSTAINED. – Joe (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Are we looking at the same article? This: [33] one, in the Science section? I suppose "long," is relative, but it's a pretty detailed article. And, at 1,000 words, pretty long. Certainly a WP:RS supporting notability. Moreover, I do not pretend to have sought, found, or sourced the article with every significant article about her. In my experience, when a quick search turns up this much material, there is almost certainly more out there.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It includes a single quote from King, which I wouldn't describe as significant coverage... – Joe (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That quote, for editors without Times access "But Dr. Dorothy King, who recently earned her doctorate in archaeology from the University of Oxford and is a leader of the opposition, emphasized the intangibles of the issue. 'The importance of the site is as much in its symbolism -- it would be the equivalent of putting a theme park in the middle of the site of the Battle of Gettysburg.'"E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As predicted, a quick search on Proquest news archives (which never finds everything that is out there; no single search engine does) on "Dorothy King" + Marathon + Olympics turned up not only the NYTimes and The Daily Telegraph articles already added to the page, but also:

• Miss Indiana Jones digs up a whole new take on history. The Observer [London (UK)] 16 Nov 2003
• Marathon game of Marbles , Daily Mail [London (UK)] 30 Apr 2003: 17.
• Marathon protest Londoner's diary: Evening Standard [London (UK)] 20 Mar 2001: 12.
• These 5 articles were picked up in British papers and in newspapers across the world. I'm sure there were more, not to mention articles about her/this in German, Greek and other languages.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory: Have you actually checked that these ones include non-trivial mentions of King? – Joe (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. Be my guest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The NYT piece has one sentence: "But Dr. Dorothy King, who recently earned her doctorate in archaeology from the University of Oxford and is a leader of the opposition, emphasized the intangibles of the issue.". Everything else added (except maybe for the Observer piece I can't access) is about Elgin marbles. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Kindly read the titles I gave above. The articles from The Observer, the Evening Standard and the Daily Mail are about the protests over building an Olympic Games facility on part of the site of the Batle of Marathon, they date from 2003 and from the titles alone title you can see what they are about. The one in The Observer is a long profile article of here. The one in The Observer is a full profile of King.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake. I am without ProQuest. The Observer piece may change my mind but the rest are still marbles stories. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Rules violation'? Looking back at the previous AFD, (many iVotes, SNOW KEEP,) I am wondering about the propriety of a deletion discussion about a conspicuously controversial figure started by an IP who is a SPA with a total of 2 edits, the tag on the page itself and the edit at this discussion. I suggest that we close this immediately as a procedural keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @E.M.Gregory: Do you have a policy to back up that assertion? I'm pretty sure we're not closing a discussion just because you don't like it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The previous AfD was eight years ago. Anonymous editors are allowed to nominate articles for deletion just like anyone else. This is, after all, the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. – Joe (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I do think that it is problematic for an SPA to be allowed to nominate a long-standing article for deletion, especially when the subject is highly controversial, and when the reasons for deletion are that the Subject hasn't published recently, that other writers are better known, that the article does not contain enough information about her childhood, and that it does not say where she earned her PhD. btw, I dsourced her Oxford PhD to the NYTimes and added it to the article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Abusing the word problematic should result in you going to bed without supper. Adding sources and making a claim for GNG and HEYMANN is fine. Suggesting that your opinion should cause the discussion to end is laughable. I don't know how you think you can edit here with that attitude. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

::::::*Very gracious of you, I'm sure. It is fine for you too clean up the article, insert better sources, and reword as per sources. Heaven knows the article has been need of a good.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC) I apologize for that snark.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Also this: [34] BBC interview, published in anticipation of the publication of the 2006 book on the Elgin marbles. A WP:RS that supports notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Biographical details now added to article, sourced to Smith, David (16 November 2003). "Miss Indiana Jones digs up a whole new take on history". The Observer and Jardine, Cassandra (12 April 2003). "My battle of Marathon". The Daily Telegraph.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh lord some of these articles are bad. "One of the last bastions of male dominance"? Archaeology is one of the most equal disciplines in British academia! "I get called the female Indiana Jones"? Please, who doesn't? It's seriously worrying how many of these profiles seem to just be parroting King's own self-promotionalism. Were the documentaries mentioned ever produced? She has evidently not become archaeology's Nigella Lawson or Simon Schama, has only written one book (ten years ago), and as far as I can tell hasn't otherwise worked in archaeology since; so in retrospect can we really consider these puff "profiles" reliable? – Joe (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Her book however The Elgin Marbles (book), was widely reviewed across the Anglosphere, excoriated in the Greek press, and can certainly support a stand-alone article. We cannot, however, merge to the book because there are profiles of her and long interviews with her in major newspapers, at least one of which, Smith, David (16 November 2003). "Miss Indiana Jones digs up a whole new take on history". The Observer, dates years before the book was announced and is about a controversy involving the archaeological site of the Battle of Marathon. The Elgin Marbles book (several reviews already in the article, does support notability. Certainly the articles that you WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC) I have now BLUELINKED her book, The Elgin Marbles.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Our notability guidelines recommend populist criteria and so it is unreasonable to delete articles that use such an approach. Thincat (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - Given coverage of her work in 2003, 2005, and 2006, she seems to have received sustained coverage as an archaeologist-activists, and thus be notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - WP:GNG criteria met. Thanks for your work E.M.Gregory. Hmlarson (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Once notable, a person is always notable, even if they become inactive, retire, or die. The article was kept by a wide consensus in 2009. The article has been improved considerably lately. Even assuming good faith, I always wonder what conflict of interest or agenda an IP editor from an unregistered IP might have, since they don't or can't disclose any interest, which especially is true when they have made few or no edits outside of this particular AfD and the subject itself is controversial. Wikipedia is not censored and should not be. One last thought: I am particularly wary about deleting articles about controversial females, considering the recent past. Bearian (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article makes a clear case for WP:GNG notability, and a news search reveals that she is widely quoted as an expert in other newspaper stories not included here (e.g. a cluster of stories in late 2014 about discoveries in Amphipolis). As well as GNG, I think she passes WP:PROF#C7. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- While the article is now adequately sourced, I have grave doubts as to her notability, which depends on one book and being an activist. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not "being an activist" that marks King as WP:NOTABLE, it is having the BBC, The Daily Telegraph, The Observer and other major media publish and broadcast articles about her activism. She is, of course, active in favor of causes that make some other activists hate her.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep She and her book have received substantial coverage, as E.M.Gregory has pointed out. More recent coverage by a Greek news site can also be found here: https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=protothema+dorothy+king&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Palmers F.C.[edit]

Palmers F.C. (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:N – Article about youtuber whose only claim to notability is "150,000 subscribers" (which is certainly not notable). Has not played in any league except against other youtube teams. 80% of the sources link to youtube or Facebook. The only good source is a BBC article which mentions this "team" vaguely in passing. Laurdecl ^talk 09:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 09:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is an actual semi pro team that has reached the top division for amateurs as mentioned in the article (Thurrock Association Sunday League Division One) and can now apply for the proper F.A pyramid, yes they are known for filming their matches, but I don't understand how the nom says that they only play youtube teams, they have only played 1 to my knowledge, Hashtag United F.C. as mentioned in the article. They just fail WP:NFOOTY but are probably the best known 'Sunday League' team in the country, so pass WP:GNG per these sources [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Thanks, AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you said, amateur teams are not notable per WP:NFOOTY and the youtube subscribers claim does not confer notability. The entire History section is about amateur leagues and """references""" used there are youtube links. If this team was notable then the record of their games would be in independent sources, not on youtube videos they have uploaded themselves. Laurdecl ^talk 07:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Understandably, the notability rules on English football teams require that a team has at least at some point played in top ten divisions of the pyramid or in the FA Cup. However, despite Palmers FC not having done so they are by far a much more well renowned team than many at the lower reaches of the English football league system, despite being a Sunday league outfit. 150,000 subscribers on Smiv's Youtube channel is surely notable enough to justify a page for the club alone, with these thousands regularly following the side's results and matches. If they cannot be classed as notable enough based on footballing terms they should at least be considered notable enough under overall Wikipedia requirements for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.123.211 (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • See this RfC on YouTuber notability. Youtubers with more than 4 million subscribers have had their pages deleted for lack of notability. I don't like this policy but it seems unfair to let this page exist. Laurdecl ^talk 23:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – this article was originally declined at AfC, see User:Swizler73/sandbox Laurdecl ^talk 07:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrator – this article has been deleted four times and salted under the name Palmers FC. Laurdecl ^talk 08:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would like to point out the BBC source is more substantual than claimed, just going to give it here;

• Delete Clearly not notable and the article is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Number 57 09:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Some minor coverage riding on the back of Hashtag United. Most references are just YouTube. Fenix down (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 14:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The team is famous for reasons beyond football. My vote is that the team meets general notability at this point.Demitrius39 (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a ballot, this is a discussion to determine consensus. A side mention in one BBC article is not enough to establish notability. Laurdecl ^talk 05:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laurdecl You mad cause of how I voted? "this isn't a ballot" LOL people are voting in order to establish consensus, and I voted so get over it.Demitrius39 (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Demitrius39: It's been shown above that this article fails to meet WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Consensus isn't established by saying "I vote for x" but by giving reasons for your viewpoint (see WP:POLL). "LOL". Laurdecl ^talk 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - most of the links provided by Alessandro are unreliable blogs; most of the 'references' in the article are YouTube, Twitter and Facebook all of which are unreliable Spiderone 09:54, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obviously fails WP:NFOOTY and fails WP:GNG too. AlessandroTiandelli333 has provided lots of links, but I don't see any reliable sources among them -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 16 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 14:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands at the 2013 UEC European Track Championships[edit]

Netherlands at the 2013 UEC European Track Championships (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)