The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup[edit]

Israel at the FIBA Basketball World Cup (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 duplicates information that exists at the national team page of Israel. Therefore its unnecessary. Nations at the xxx pages are also reserved for events with multiple sports or disciplines. This one focuses on just one sport. Also quoting Peter Rehse, from another similar AFD [1], There is nothing demonstrating that [the country] performed anywhere near notable." Considering Israel hasn't competed in some of the events below. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Adding these related articles for a similar reason (the information exists at the main World Championships page).[reply]

Please visit the AfD page for the full set of links for these articles.

Israel at the 1954 FIBA World Championship

Israel at the 1986 FIBA World Championship

Israel at the 1956 AFC Asian Cup

Israel at the 1960 AFC Asian Cup

Israel at the 1964 AFC Asian Cup

Israel at the 1968 AFC Asian Cup

Israel at the UEFA European Championship (Note the country has never qualified for this tournament, and therefore the title is misleading)

Israel at the UEFA Women's Championship (Note the country has never qualified for this tournament, and therefore the title is misleading)

Israel at the EuroBasket

Israel at the EuroBasket 1959

Israel at the EuroBasket 1961

Israel at the EuroBasket 1963

Israel at the EuroBasket 1965

Israel at the EuroBasket 1967

Israel at the EuroBasket 1969

Israel at the EuroBasket 1971

Israel at the EuroBasket 1973

Israel at the EuroBasket 1975

Israel at the EuroBasket 1977

Israel at the EuroBasket 1979

Israel at the EuroBasket 1981

Israel at the EuroBasket 1983

Israel at the EuroBasket 1985

Israel at the EuroBasket 1987

Israel at the EuroBasket 1993

Israel at the EuroBasket 1995

Israel at the EuroBasket 1997

Israel at the EuroBasket 1999

Israel at the EuroBasket 2001

Israel at the EuroBasket 2003

Israel at the EuroBasket 2005

Israel at the EuroBasket 2007

Israel at the EuroBasket 2009

Israel at the EuroBasket 2011

Israel at the EuroBasket 2013

Israel at the EuroBasket 2015

Israel at the EuroBasket 2017

Israel at the EuroBasket Women

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1950

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1991

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1995

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1997

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 1999

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2001

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2003

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2005

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2007

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2009

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2011

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2013

Israel at the EuroBasket Women 2015

Israel at the FIFA World Cup

Israel at the 1970 FIFA World Cup

Israel at the FIFA Women's World Cup

Israel at the 2013 World Baseball Classic

Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic

Israel at the 2010 European Baseball Championship (misleading title as the country did not qualify for the tournament)

Israel at the 2012 European Baseball Championship (misleading title as the country did not qualify for the tournament)

Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship (misleading title as the country did not qualify for the tournament)

Israel at the European Championship of American football

Israel at the European Lacrosse Championships

Israel at the 2012 European Lacrosse Championships

Israel at the 2016 European Lacrosse Championships

Israel at the Women's European Lacrosse Championships

Israel at the World Lacrosse Championships

Israel at the Women's Lacrosse World Cup

Israel at the 1992 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1993 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1994 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1995 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1996 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1997 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1998 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 1999 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2000 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2001 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2002 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2003 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2004 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships

Israel at the 2005 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2006 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2007 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2008 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2009 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2010 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2011 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2012 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2013 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2014 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2015 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the 2016 IIHF World Championship

Israel at the IIHF World Championship

• Keep - Firstly I see no policy stated as to why it should be deleted, only the person's opinion. Secondly, saying some without having the world qualifying in it is not a reason to delete, if anything thats a move. Third, its not reserved only for multi sport events, every country has there own World Cup page, and Brazil for example has one for every year. - Galatz^Talk 00:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication is not allowed on Wikipedia. its not my personal opinion. If you took the time too look at the other related AFD's you would see there is a consensus to delete these sort of nation pages at a single sport event. For ex. the road cycling pages were all deleted with the same reasoning provided here. If a nation does not qualify for an event there is no need for an article. It is misleading the to the reader! Again nation pages are almost exclusively reserved for multi-sporting events as the above AFD's will tell you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other user's and administrator's, the above user has had similar articles deleted in regards to their second reason [2]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 00:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Initially I thought that these articles would be notable in tournaments Israel actually qualified for (like the Brazil ones Galatz mentioned.) However, after looking at the above AfDs, I don't think those are notable either. The Brazil ones should be deleted as well, and I have no objection to nominating them. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. Smartyllama (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smartyllama:I could understand you saying the individual years like the Brazil ones more than the one that summarizes the tournament. There is not one other page that summarizes every appears at the World Cup. You would need to check hundreds of different pages to find everything that Brazil at the FIFA World Cup summarizes. It doesn't make sense to do that, the country at the games is inherently notable and meets WP:GNG at the very least. - Galatz^Talk 04:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Brazil national football team would cover most of it. And in any case, Brazil has qualified for every FIFA World Cup, while Israel has qualified for one. If we put the Brazil ones up for deletion, we can discuss these issues there. But they don't apply to the Israel page. Smartyllama (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all – spam like this is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. How many AfDs are there going to be on these? Laurdecl ^talk 01:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurdec1: You can't really say they are spam without reviewing them. For example, look at Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic. It is extremely well source, and no matter what, with that level of coverage you cannot say it does not meet WP:GNG.

• Delete. Nothing notable about these pages. And huge lack of sources doesn't help it either. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: You are clearly generalizing, I gain use the reference right above you of Israel at the 2017 World Baseball Classic. How can you say that doesn't have sources or meet GNG? - Galatz^Talk 14:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your example is not the main subject here so I'm not generalizing anything. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: But you just voted to delete every single article, which means that you automatically are - Galatz^Talk 16:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for nitpicking. I gave my opinion and that won't change. Just because I have a different opinion, that doesn't mean you can come here and cry. The community's vote will decide what to do with these articles. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I voiced my objection to the hockey articles previously, not sure about including all of these sports together though. If you look at WP:SPORTSEVENT the clear direction is to expand the existing articles first and then evaluate whether an independent article is warranted. This was not done, the information was mostly just duplicated, and not even correctly. So the question is, (to me anyway) whether the existing pages would be improved upon if left up. Even after pointing out the errors to the creator, some of the mistakes were not remedied. I find it unlikely in retrospect that they ever will be unless I do it myself so I would prefer them to be deleted.18abruce (talk) 17:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the individual year pages, as they are unlikely to really expand and offer little different from the main relevant articles, but Keep the "Israel at (insert tournament)" as that seems like something that could provide more in depth detail and a summary of Israel's participation in said tournaments. This would even go for things like the UEFA Euro championship, which as noted while Israel has never played in the final tournament, has participated in qualification (which seems relevant for such an article). Kaiser matias (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Israel at the FIBA World Championship, Israel at the EuroBasket, Israel at the IIHF World Championship, etc. The articles about the respective national teams are too big, and having those extra pages are a great way to keep them reasonably long. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per WP:NOTSTATS. Proliferation of sports statistics cruft that's best left to dedicated databases. Alternatively, merge - but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not stats database. Renata (talk) 02:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear WP:NOTSTATS violations. Fenix down (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there a way to approach each of these articles individually? It's hard to make a determination on all of them combined at a glance. For the instances where they didn't compete in qualifying or the tournament itself, I agree that there's no need for the article. However, where they did compete, there should be something. There might be some middle ground, but it's difficult to ascertain here. I think it's better to close this AfD and re-open it on each individual article. South Nashua (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @South Nashua: We tried that a while back, but there were way too many of them and it became unwieldy so they were all closed. Smartyllama (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Acknowledged. Thanks for bringing me partially up to speed. South Nashua (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @South Nashua:@Smartyllama: That is an extremely misleading way of saying it and entirely incorrect. The initial nomination was the same issue as he is bringing up here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup. Then you tried it again for only one set of articles and the result was overwhelmingly keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2016 European Baseball Championship (2nd nomination). Please show me how nominating the European Baseball ones by themselves got "unwieldy". I think he wants something more like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Israel at the 2014 FIFA World Cup (2nd nomination).- Galatz^Talk 15:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Galatz: @South Nashua: I should have been clearer, you're right. However, what happened with the original AfD is that they were first nominated as ~100 different AfDs, which was unworkable. Then they were merged as here, but the damage was already done and it was closed. It's unreasonable to make people participate in ~100 different AfDs about similar articles. Smartyllama (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Gotcha. In that case, if there's a way to separate out the instances where Israel participated in these events and the instances were they didn't, I could register my viewpoint. (former = keep, latter = delete). I think qualification can be considered a part of the tournament, but if they weren't in even a part of the tournament and there's nothing to explain some significant reason why (i.e. - a scandal or what not), then I don't see why there would be an article. South Nashua (talk) 18:09, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • @South Nashua: You're welcome to express that view anyway. There's no rule saying you have to vote all-or-nothing. And given there are multiple ways we could separate them (Galatz mentioned possibly separating them by sport) we couldn't possibly separate them by every logical combination. Smartyllama (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the hockey ones, Israel never participated at the top-level tournament, which per WP:NHOCKEY is the only one that counts for conferring notability on players. They only participated in lower divisions, which don't confer notability onto players. I don't know if the same principle would apply here if we decide to keep only tournaments Israel actually qualified for. Smartyllama (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They did in 2006. - Galatz^Talk 20:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz: Division I is not the top division. See 2006 IIHF World Championship, which is the top division. Smartyllama (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "Israel at X", Merge editions This information is better gathered at "nation at competition" level. The study of individual countries at major international sporting events (such as world and major continental championships) is a key part of any nation's sporting history (the performance at individual editions, ultimately less so). The per edition information should be merged into the main "Israel at X" articles. Also note that WP:NOTSTATS is entirely non-relevant to this discussion as the statistics gathered are very discriminate and are contextualised. Of much more relevance is the first sentence from Wikipedia:Five pillars: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." This type of information very clearly resembles that of sporting almanacs and is thus relevant to our community's scope. SFB 00:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Just looks like a spam to me. Lots of violations as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by Izukiviktor (talk • contribs) 01:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question I'm not really familiar with FIBA, so I may have missed something, but is there anything noteworthy at, say, Israel at the EuroBasket 1975 that isn't covered at EuroBasket 1975? If there is, would it not make more sense to include it there rather than splitting the information out among (potentially) twelve different articles (plus the main one, I guess) that all cover the same event from marginally different perspectives? That just seems really unwieldy. Matt Deres (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Matt Deres: I think for major events it is useful as you can go more in-depth on the team's performance than you would do at a tournament level. Personally I think that is best done at the Israel at the EuroBasket level where the nation's history and progress at the event can be better contextualised in a way that is not possible at any other venue (I see lots of value and merit in things like England at the FIFA World Cup). Especially for single team sports events, the summary of the nation at a single edition will always struggle to add much more to what is already present elsewhere. SFB 21:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sillyfolkboy: I can understand that. Maybe even both 'rolled up' articles make sense. For example, we have an article on the New York Yankees and we have articles for each World Series that's been played, but we don't have articles on New York Yankees in the 1975 post-season (multiplied by similar pages for every team involved). Matt Deres (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least all the individual year ones per the points immediately above. Matt Deres (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of works of fiction by year[edit]

List of works of fiction by year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted as it has only one blue link after the articles bundled with WP:Articles for deletion/List of works of fiction set in 2029 were deleted. This means the article is not any use for navigation list. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 23:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I was surprised by the closure of the other Afd by @King of Hearts:, in a manner that I thought was hasty. The minimum number of days had just passed, new editors were still contributing and the opinions expressed were not uniformly to delete. But with that closure this list serves no purpose and I think WP:G8 might even apply. I'll tag it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nobody really goes around grouping/analyzing fiction by year. This would also be a massive undertaking, inasmuch as many works take place over a number of years and there's a ginormous amount of fiction. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 15 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. Already speedy deleted. Tone 13:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Howard M. Resh[edit]

Howard M. Resh (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 violates WP:BLP by not having any reliable sources. One source is his website, the other source is a resort website. Rogermx (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 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 Deleted (NAC). SwisterTwister talk 17:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Wrekk[edit]

Alex Wrekk (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 of the article isn't sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article Ryujinjakka (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Previous afd is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex wrekk

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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 NBC Sports. T. Canens (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NBC Sports Live Extra[edit]

NBC Sports Live Extra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Procedural nomination. IPs keep nominating for CSD, and I suspect it is a deliberate attempt to disrupt. Was previously a redirect,, and I suggest we restore it. Adam9007 (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect; IP basically trying to mountain up a molehill for the network's TV Everywhere service. Probably best to build up a short paragraph in NBCSN, where it streams most of its content from. Nate • (chatter) 01:24, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close  No argument for deletion.  See also WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  The IPs that were vandalizing this article have all been blocked. Nevertheless, it may still be worth having a discussion about this article, but it doesn't necessarily need to be here. Bradv 03:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Because DeltaQuad blocked all for 3 months of editing period but DeltaQuad gaved the reason anonblock and Extended Vandalism. An IP is trying to delete the page but administrator are showing and the article but it nominated in my talk page. 66.215.134.13 06:50, 15 January 2017
• Comment The article is unsourced and out of date. NBC Sports mentions this topic several times and has sources. I think a redirect would be a great improvement. Haven't spend the time to gauge whether a case can be made for a separate article. Gab4gab (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to NBC Sports, the parent topic. No independent evidence of notability for this streaming service. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donovan Taplin[edit]

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

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

Delete. WP:BLP of a politician with no strong claim to passing WP:NPOL, as his only substantive claims of notability are serving as a local municipal councillor in a small town and being appointed to advisory committees, and no strong evidence of satisfying WP:GNG, as the referencing here is entirely to government press releases, a blurb about him winning a university scholarship, and a single news article about him in the local media where coverage of local municipal politics is purely WP:ROUTINE. As always, Wikipedia is not a place where a person is automatically entitled to an article just because he exists -- if he keeps it up he's quite likely to get back into Wikipedia under an actual inclusion criterion someday, but nothing here actually gets him an article today. Bearcat (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep. While a local politician, Taplin is the first openly gay elected politician in his community and is the only listed openly gay elected municipal politician in all of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador in the wikipedia article List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in Canada. When one also considers he is the youngest municipal official ever elected in Newfoundland and Labrador, his political achievements are indeed province-wide not just local. He has been recognized for these accomplishments through appointed roles from the Heads of Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and Canada, in addition to being awarded two of the largest merit scholarships in the country. This article is worthy as it speaks to an example of the often underrepresented achievements of LGBT youth.

Firstly, being the first openly gay elected politician in his own community is not, in and of itself, a reason why somebody gets a Wikipedia article. If a town isn't large enough that serving on its municipal council would already have gotten him an article anyway (a status which only cities on the order of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver or Ottawa get), then distinctions like "youngest" or "first member of an underrepresented minority" do not inherently make him more notable than his other colleagues. He would have to hold a much more nationalized distinction, such as being the first out LGBT holder of any office in all of Canada, to get included on that basis — but he's far from that. And he isn't even the first LGBT officeholder in NL, either, as Gerry Rogers beat him to that by at least two years.

Secondly, winning a merit scholarship does not make a person notable enough for an encyclopedia article in and of itself either — thousands of university students win different merit scholarships to study at university every year, and winning one does not automatically make him more special than most of the others.

Thirdly, serving on political advisory committees is not a notability claim that gets a person into Wikipedia either.

And fourthly, notability on Wikipedia is ultimately not determined by what an article claims about its subject; it's determined by the depth and quality of reliable source coverage that can be shown about the subject. Which means substantive coverage in media, not press releases or blurbs or university student newspapers. There's only one reference here of the correct type ("Meet Bell Island's boy wonder") — but (a) that's local human interest coverage of the type that would be routinely expected to exist in the local media for a young achiever, and (b) one piece of legitimate media coverage is not enough media coverage to pass WP:GNG just because "media coverage exists". Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gerry Rogers is the first LGBT office holder in Newfoundland (Provincial MHA), Taplin is the first LGBT municipal office holder. He is the youngest ever municipal councillor not just for his hometown, but the entire province. There are no student newspapers cited, The Gazette of Memorial University does feature student contributions, but is operated, published, and written by university staff. The "Meet Bell Island's Boy Wonder" article is complemented by the "How to go to University Without Paying a Cent" article which was nationally published in Maclean's Magazine and speaks to Taplin's accomplishments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islander1999 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, please note that you get only one "vote" in an AFD discussion. You can comment in the discussion as many times as you like, but you do not get to preface any further comments with a "keep" or "do not delete" vote — followup comments are comments, not new votes, and may not be prefaced with a new restatement of the vote you've already made.

Secondly, again, "first LGBT holder of office at the municipal level in his province" is not a notability claim that gets a person into an encyclopedia. If he were the first LGBT holder of any office anywhere in all of Canada, that would be a legitimate basis for an article, but "first person to hold one particular level of office in one province, when that level of office isn't inherently notable in and of itself and he's not the first overall LGBT holder of office period" is not.

Thirdly, just because a university newspaper is written primarily by the university staff rather than the university students does not make it not a university newspaper. And secondly, this does also cite the McGill Daily, so even your hairsplitting over the MUN Gazette still does not make it true that "no student newspapers" are being cited.

And fourthly, a blurb in Maclean's about his winning a scholarship does not equal substantive coverage in Maclean's. A person does not automatically qualify for a Wikipedia article the moment his name has been mentioned a single time in Maclean's — a person qualifies for a Wikipedia article when he's getting substantive coverage in Maclean's in a noteworthy context, which "winning a university scholarship" is not. Bearcat (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note on "votes", apologies, my mistake. I have removed the piece from the McGill Daily as the citation which followed it from the Huffington Post suffices. We diverge on interpretation of notability in terms of the significance of his being the youngest and first LGBT holder of municipal office in Newfoundland and Labrador. The section of the Maclean's article not only speaks to his scholarship wins but also his electoral accomplishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islander1999 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huffington Post is a blog, so it's not a suitable source either: it can be used in instances where it's acting as a straight reprinter of wire service content from the likes of Canadian Press (because the citation is ultimately to the originator of the content, while HuffPo is just serving as a convenience link), but it's not a source that counts toward meeting WP:GNG if a person is mentioned in original content written by one of HuffPo's own staff bloggers. And the fact that "his electoral accomplishment" happens to be mentioned in a blurb whose purpose for existing is because of the scholarship does not make that blurb "coverage of the electoral accomplishment" — because again, "his electoral accomplishment" is not grounds for an article given that it's at the municipal level of office and not the provincial or federal levels. Bearcat (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an article from the Toronto Star after the Huffpost Blog. Merely getting elected to a municipal office may not be cause for inclusion in an encyclopedia article itself, but the nature of his election - framed within LGBT and youth contexts - makes it significant in a broader way. Maclean's' mention of this in his section of their article demonstrates their acknowledging of that electoral feat as significant enough to include in their coverage of his work after winning both of Canada's largest merit scholarships. comment added by Islander1999

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a local political office holder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a notable individual for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and Canada. CuriousGeorge94 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC) (CuriousGeorge94 talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete A political office holder at the lowest possible tier. The GNG threshold is not met by the list of local publications, university paper articles or "blog"-type content. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would like to change my orginal vote. Thank you to the rest of those who contributed to the discussion - I learned a lot about Wikipedia expectations and guidelines. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Islander1999 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. Since you've changed your !vote (and the fact that you can only vote once), I've struck out your initial !vote for you. Also note that {u|Islander1999)) is the article creator. JudgeRM (talk to me) 02:28, 20 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. I see a rough consensus that the current state of the article is so bad as to warrant TNT. No prejudice to an appropriate recreation from scratch (without machine translation etc.). T. Canens (talk) 00:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mirella Santos[edit]

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

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

Procedural nomination as article nominated for deletion under speedy deletion criterion A7 but declined due to some coverage in reliable sources and association with notable person Latino (singer). Nomination only for discussion; I have no thoughts on the notability of this subject. Appable (talk | contributions) 17:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless someone seriously thinks they can salvage this, rather than just engaging in bureaucracy-for-bureaucracy's-sake editwars about whether CSD, PROD or AFD is the correct deletion method. A chunk of machine-translated gibberish (other than the opening Mirella Alba dos Santos Muniz (born May 20, 1983) is a Brazilian model, reporter and dancer there is literally not a single coherent sentence here), which does no more than demonstrate that the subject exists. ‑ Iridescent 17:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as importance is not inherited. Toddst1 (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person has received much coverage: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 and plenty more. She is clearly notable and big in Brazil. Adam9007 (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe we should have an article in this space but this current version is hopeless and needs WP:TNT. It's clearly been created by an automatic translation utility such as google translate. Anyone can generate thousands of these with a few clicks. I'm currently working my way through 3,583 of these created last summer. Unfortunately, a lot of them are concealed copyvios, created by copying text from a commercial website into the translation utility and then pasting the output into a Wikipedia article. This is of course undetectable as a copyvio by standard tools, which leaves us with the choice between a laborious process of working out what the source text is and whether it's available on a Wikipedia-compliant license, and whether the translation is accurate -- which is effort out of all proportion to the few clicks involved in creating these! -- or just deleting it and giving Wikipedians the opportunity to start again from scratch. I advocate the second alternative.—S Marshall T/C 00:40, 15 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. Tone 14:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Hignutt[edit]

Diana Hignutt (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)

Author does not meet notability standards established in WP:AUTHOR. Owen (talk) 08:23, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Lack of notability. Mohammad Sally (talk) 13:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - At present this article is completely unsourced (there is a single reference, but it is to a dead link for a small local weekly newspaper and the purported title of said article suggests that it is a local special interest piece about Hignutt's marriage as a transwoman to another woman--hardly suitable for establishing Hignutt's notability as an author) and searches for additional reliable sources have turned up nothing for me, just a couple social media accounts, an amazon page for her one book (which seems to be published under Amazon's amateur self-publishing scheme that allows anyone to sell their writing on a kindle, not an actual publishing house), and a couple of blurbs in a small blog. More or less a WP:SNOW case to me; not notable under either WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Snow ^{let's rap} 21:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, hi snow, its great that you believe this is a snow being snowy yourself, c'mon coola, stay focussed, oh, right, sorry:), found an article from the philly weekly about the couple, which could be used to flesh out the article (this might be the "dead link" article), if kept, btw rather then a "small local weekly newspaper" phil wkly appears to be quite a large state paper if this is anything to go by - "Circulation: 86,000 (as of June 2014) .. Philadelphia Weekly is the largest audited-circulation weekly newspaper in Pennsylvania, distributed at nearly 2,000 locations reaching a readership close to 400,000."[3] (although is this site coi?), but i digress:), also found a couple of books reviews; Publishers Weekly review of Empress of Clouds - "The author, herself a transsexual, sensitively handles the book's transsexual theme, but the abundance of superior fantasy fiction in the marketplace, some of it more effectively gender-bending than this workmanlike effort, presents a challenge."[4], and International Foundation for Gender Education review of Moonsword - " Diana Hignutt?s first novel, Moonsword, is just such a fantasy, one that penetrates to the heart of transgender truth. .. The story is full of twists and turns that captivate the reader. Anyone who likes science fiction or fantasy will enjoy Moonsword. Those readers who happen to understand transgender experience from the inside out will find here a mythic tale that penetrates the mystery and the truth of being differently gendered."[5], but more is needed for Hignutt to meet wp notability. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Coola! I'm afraid that these additional materials don't really change the equation for me much when it comes to the notability of Ms. Hignutt as an author. The Publisher's Weekly "review" is a four sentence that is essentially a bare bones plot synopsis inset to a form sales page for the book, plus a one-line analysis of the quality of the book. The IFGE review of Hignutt's first work is similarly just a couple of paragraphs--I'm afraid that's just not enough to establish the kind of significant or detailed coverage we'd need to justify an article on this book, let alone it's author by mere association. Could you please provide a link to the additional source (the Philadelphia Weekly article)? My strong suspicion is that, if it is what the title suggests it is (a local human interest piece on a couple, one of whom happens to be transsexual), it isn't going to do much of anything to bolster the case for Hignutt being an encyclopedically relevant subject in herself. But that reservation not withstanding, I'd still like to review that source. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oops, sorry snow, here it is, btw agree with your above response, hence why mine is a "comment" but still on the fence as a couple more refs may tip the balance (where are the lgbt studies editors when we need them?:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:00, 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 List of University of Toledo people. T. Canens (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Toledo presidents[edit]

List of University of Toledo presidents (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 content appears in List of University of Toledo people under the heading "Heads of university". All relevant faculty information is brought together in that article. I see little reason for a separate list article here. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 22:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I was prepared to delete that section from that article right before this deletion notice came up. Since other universities like Ball State have a page for a list of Presidents, I felt it was necessary for Toledo. Wikidude10000 (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Obvious alternatives to deletion per WP:PRESERVE, WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew D. (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bear in mind that this is a short list (which will expand by one entry every year, if that) which already exists within another article – it is a cut-and-paste without any opportunity for expansion. Deletion here does not remove anything, effectively! -- Pingumeister^(talk) 20:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Does anyone know why some schools have such pages, while some don't?E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect back to List of University of Toledo people per WP:CHEAP. This university is not so old nor so prestigious to warrant a separate list for its leaders. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Bearian. No need for separate page of mostly redlinks — Iadmc♫^talk  06:50, 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 and redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies. T. Canens (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Clark Young[edit]

Robert Clark Young (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:AUTHOR and WP:1E may apply as well. This is an exceedingly minor writer who fails the criteria set forth for writers under the guideline. His claim to fame is that he was held up as an example of COI by a writer for Salon. Yeah, I know, COI is terrible. But that doesn't mean that we pillory people who engage in COI. I've edited the article to remove much of the large amount of material relating to his Wikipedia editing, which clearly is in breach of WP:UNDUE. Possibly the whole thing should go under WP:WELLKNOWN due to a lack of multiple independent sources. What remains just doesn't strike me as sufficient to support a stand-alone article on this person, and is overwhelmingly negative. He is mentioned in List of Wikipedia controversies. That is sufficient. Coretheapple (talk) 22:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Wikipedia controversies. He is mainly notable for that controversy. --Tataral (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per Tartaral. I can't find anything unrelated to WP that would get this away from WP:BLP1E, and the less navel-gazing we do in article space, the better. VQuakr (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suggest that any redirect page be created after deletion. I note that there seems to be agreement that the grounds for deletion are there. This is a BLP, and it is important that the page not simply be reverted back. Coretheapple (talk) 14:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Warrior diet[edit]

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

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

This is a non-notable fringe diet. I pruned some unreliable sources, the only one remaining is a clickbait-heavy site stuffed with advertorial for supplements and fad diets, albeit alongside legitimate content. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - The topic was discussed by Washington Post in 2012. Other than that, I can't find any other reliable sources except for Blogs and Tabloids. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 02:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I could see someone looking up the diet and benefitting from a concise summary on Wikipedia. Jeff Quinn (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like WP:USEFUL. Any good sources to add? Guy (Help!) 23:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - until and unless a notable mention surfaces. Good work running all this down, btw. Kortoso (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• delete' i looked for sources and there is a lack of significant discussion in RS - see Talk:Warrior_diet#sources. There are lots of bloggy, poor sites.Jytdog (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You have destroyed the page in days! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Warrior_diet&type=revision&diff=759182327&oldid=759181405 is what it used to look like. Congratulations for that. This is what Wikipedians do - take other people's work and trash it. And why? Because it is so much easier to destroy work than write it, and Wikipedia doesn't have to pay for people's time, and Wikipedians always think they know best. It's a fair bet that all the people meddling with the page in the last few days and the people above saying DELETE! haven't actually bothered to obtain a copy of the book to see what it says. You won't feel the need! That would be too logical. Just rewrite the page, as a prelude to deleting it after you've made the page look rubbish. What's your actual agenda here? To steal the guy's ideas on intermittent fasting? 5.150.92.82 (talk) 13:54, 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 speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Rochon: Light Painter[edit]

Patrick Rochon: Light Painter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Appears to fail WP:ARTIST - there are minimal sources regarding exhibitions (e.g. here, but this exhibition is mentioned nowhere else) and I can find no more than passing mention of him in print publications. -- Pingumeister^(talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's so bad I think it can be speedied WP:G11. I've applied the tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:05, 15 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. Tone 14:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin O'Connell (Canadian weather reporter)[edit]

Kevin O'Connell (Canadian weather reporter) (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 the general notability guideline and the notability guidelines for journalists. No apparent coverage outside of stories on the affiliated Global Edmonton website. schetm (talk) 21:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Single-market local television personalities are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they can get articles if they can be shown to clear WP:GNG on the basis of sufficient reliable source coverage about them in unaffiliated media, but they do not get to keep articles whose only source is their staff profile on the website of their own employer. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a non-notable journalist; no indication of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a non-notable weather reporter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:34, 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 delete. T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fairwinds Marina[edit]

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

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

Does not cite any sources or assert its notability. Pure advertisement. Veggies (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. I found one local newspaper article from 2014 that could be a ref for everthing in the article, but that is not enough to establish notability. MB 21:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Lacks substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. I find only a small bit of local coverage. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep per WP:SNOW. The difference between the dossier and this article on the dossier is that this is well-referenced and verified. Delete arguments about "left-wing populism" miss the mark, and "all the sources is founded by one researcher or speculative" [sic] is belied by the facts of the article. If you disagree with an early close that's fine, I understand; I suggest you talk to another admin, or post at AN, about undoing it or whatever the next step might be. In the meantime, and in the absence of strong policy-based reasons to delete, I see no reason to keep this running. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump Russia dossier[edit]

Donald Trump Russia dossier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I think this article should be speedy-deleted as a BLP violation. It quotes extensively from an unverified document which makes numerous unproven derogatory claims about a living person. It even includes a PDF of the entire unverified, scandalous document. In other articles about this subject we have been careful to report only the existence of the document and reactions to it; we have carefully avoided repeating any of its unproven claims. I could not tag this for G10 because it does have sources, and in any case it would need broader community input to delete it. But I feel it qualifies for deletion as a violation of Wikipedia's BLP policies, and I would hate to see it stay in Wikipedia for a week. Can we apply IAR, perhaps? MelanieN (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. After deletion (to get rid of the BLP violations) it could become a redirect to 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier, where it is extensively discussed. --MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I may have been too conservative in saying that it didn't qualify for G10. I see that a similar article, Donald Trump "compromised" claims, was G10ed a couple of days ago even though it did have sources. --MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Meets WP:GNG with more than enough reliable sources discussing the dossier in depth. Any BLP concerns can be resolved on the talk page. If we can manage to adhere to BLP when we're writing about a child sex ring run by Clinton and Podesta at Pizzagate conspiracy theory, then we can manage it on this article as well. gobonobo ^{+ c} 19:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete or Redirect to 2016 United States election interference by Russia - Wikipedia is not a place for tabloid gossip or salacious, unverified tabloid materials. While the existence of this document can be verified, the document is from anonymous sources and its content cannot be validated as factual. Inferences drawn from this document constitute WP:OR and does not meet WP:RS and constitutes violations of WP:BLP. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment After this AfD was listed, a good deal of the BLP violating material was removed from the article. What is left could possibly be acceptable but would be a constant magnet for BLP violations. And it is pretty much duplicated at 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier. --MelanieN (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it would be a magnet for vandalism doesn't mean we should delete the article. We do have page protection if we need it. gobonobo ^{+ c} 20:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:EASYTARGET. ^Falling_Gravity 06:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - A wide array of reliable sources have reported on its existence and debated the veracity of its claims; no less a news organization than the BBC has extensively discussed it. While this article should absolutely be written to conform with BLP (leaving out unconfirmed salacious details, not linking directly to the document in question, being scrupulously sourced to only the highest-quality publications), I don't think it's tenable to say the article can't exist, particularly when we have plenty of articles including claims about the Podesta emails and Pizzagate conspiracy theory that are also, at best, weakly sourced or have been outright disproven. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The article has now been greatly improved and expanded with neutral information. Kudos to User:Octoberwoodland for making this into an acceptable Wikipedia article (though it will have to be watched closely). I withdraw my nomination for deletion. I also request, if it is kept, that it be placed under Discretionary Sanctions (U.S. politics). --MelanieN (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to appropriate section of 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Not every controversy is encyclopedic. — JFG ^talk 21:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. nominator and WP:administrator MelanieN has withdrawn her nomination for deletion and she now supports its existence and publication within the outlines set out in WP:policy and guidelines. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that I am functioning at this article as a regular editor, not an administrator, per WP:INVOLVED. Also please note that this discussion can't simply be closed as "nomination withdrawn," because other people have supported "delete" or "redirect". --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:Administrator has a high understanding of wp:policy and guidelines - I respect your retraction of your deletion request and your acceptance of the article now within those policies and guidelines, thanks for your guidance. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per arguments by Govindaharihari and MelanieN. In addition, events around the dossier are making news on their own. The article may need improvement in terms of respectable news outlets confirming and corroborating the details in the dossier. Events around the dossier - that it exists, and that it was requested, written, passed around, and extensively discussed - are still facts. -Mardus /talk 21:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*""speedy keep, and vote that whover nominated this for deletion be permanently banished from Wikipedia for such a poor excercise of partisan judgment. The idea that this is not an encylopedic topic is so laughable that it does not even a merit a response other than ridicule and public shaming,Sockhunter (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

• Note: I am the original creator of this beautiful work. You're welcome, everyone. Keep up the good work,Sockhunter (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Sockpuppet of Kingshowman. GAB^gab 22:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Reincorporate into 2016 United States election interference by Russia — Crucial details regarding the dossier have been adequately elucidated in the aforementioned article. A lot of this article feeds into present public anxiety on Russian interference and is nothing more than posturing that does not represent Wikipedia. I move for a speedy deletion. Frevangelion (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I think at this point it's sort of obvious this is notable as every source and their dog has reported on the dossier. "2016 United States election interference by Russia" should of course provide a brief summary of the dossier and the controversy, but this is the article where the actual in depth info (who wrote it, under what circumstances, how was it "leaked", who's seen it, etc. - all issues covered in multiple reliable sources) can be presented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We can go into much more detail with this article than at 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier, where too much detail creates a weight problem. I also happen to support MelanieN's reasoning. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is a distinction to be made here between the provability of the allegations, and the provability of the existence of the allegations, which some appear not to grasp. Whether or not the fact that whether or not the claims are unproven, it is demonstrably proven that the claims and allegations have been made, and were considered credible enough to be presented to the president and the top of American intelligence. Please consider that on the deletionist's tortured logic, we would be unable to publish an article on any criminal trial, if the defendant was found not guilty. Allegations of guilt, whether presented in dossier form or at trial, can manifestly be notable whether or not the defendant is cleared of the charges. Even if the charges are entirely a hoax, we have plenty of hoax articles that drew on far less evidence than this. I don't see any of you deletionists screaming for the deletion of Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories or Pizzagate, both of which were just fabricated by non-intelligence sources and both of which had far less of a claim to encylopedic interest. It therefore appears outrageously shocking how conservatively biased this encylopedia is. How is it even possible that Wikipedia has so many conservative editors, when the vast majority of educated, highly literate persons are liberal, as a matter of irrefutable fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B403:2668:89A8:360D:D4D1:F4BC (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP - This is a major scandal that easily passes WP:GNG and if this is a BLP vio then Pizzagate is a STRONG BLP vio that has even less substance behind it than this does. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — The comparison between Pizzagate and this document is a mostly a false equivalence outside of BLP concerns. One is a conspiracy theory that became notable for its media coverage involving the Turkish press, a banned subreddit, and a pizzeria shooting. This is a document that might be notable because of its extensive news coverage and the backlash it received. While they both discuss allegations that may or may not be true, BLP can be enforced in both articles by pointing out all false or unsubstantiated claims. ^Falling_Gravity 06:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The current article is far more acceptable than the BLP-violating mess that was its first incarnation. If anyone has concerns about parts of the article violating BLP policy, the article has a Talk page doesn't it? Exemplo347 (talk) 07:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• very very weak Keep Not sure if this is notable in it's own right or not. But it has received a lot of coverage (and I agree that this has far more evidence then a lot of other equally libelous accusations we do have pages on).Slatersteven (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I agree with BullRangifer and others. Very well-sourced and highly significant. Questions about how the article should be written and what it should include can be raised on the talk page. Neutrality^talk 15:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or possibly merge). This seems well-sourced and notable. We obviously should not (and do not) have an article that confirms the alleged dossier as legitimate, but this has been very widely reported on. It has already been noted that the bar for conspiracy theories (e.g., Pizzagate and Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories) is somewhat lower, but then again I also feel that WP:OTHERCRAP applies. I'm somewhat neutral on merger with 2016 United States election interference by Russia#Briefing on alleged Trump dossier. I think that would be an acceptable outcome, but I believe that to properly cover every response to the allegations in an appropriately neutral encyclopedic manner is best achieved in a separate article, at least for the moment. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a closer parallel might be the Podesta emails, which are again about allegedly "leaked" documents coming from intelligence sources, in that case Russian intelligence (via Wikileaks), and in this case MI6. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Notable Drsmoo (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a notable topic. A WP:SPLIT from 2016 United States election interference by Russia is justified because this dossier is not just about Russian interference in the elections. It alleges ways Trump may be blackmailed, and this is different from election interference. It is also a source of a lot of tabloid and comedy commentary. The commentary is notable because it is about the President Elect and highly pervasive. A size WP:SPLIT may be needed when the article is > than 50 kB of readable prose. 2016 United States election interference by Russia is currently at 47 KB and growing. Download the prose size script here. User:Dr pda/prosesize Waters.Justin (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Nominator withdrew in this diff, but we have outstanding !votes. Would editors (Octoberwoodland—JFG—Frevangelion) reconsider their position? — Sam Sailor 03:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sam, but this discussion is still being strongly debated. I think it should run its full course. There's no emergency now that the BLP violations have been removed. --MelanieN (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my !vote. Whatever meat this article eventually retains, it should not be forked from the whole 2016 United States election interference by Russia affair, which provides appropriate context (and could use some trimming too). — JFG ^talk 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I—like JFG—stand by my !vote for speedy deletion and/or reincorporation into the 2016 United States election interference by Russia article as a subsection. I cannot stand by this kind of posturing and gossip-mongering that my fellow users seem so keen on deeming encyclopedic. Frevangelion (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Notable article that is extensively and reliably sourced. Keiiri (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article having extensive references is not an automatic metric of its quality. The origin of the dossier and the information provided on said dossier are still unsubstantiated and are not worthy of validation on an encyclopedic medium. I'm not sure what kind of precedent we're trying to set here as Wikipedia editors. Frevangelion (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's not "automatic" but it certainly does help to establish the undeniable notability of the topic. The origins and the info in the dossier are neither here nor there as far as notability is concerned. Again, we have articles on Pizzagate (if you want to talk precedent).Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:BLP (public figures). The policy provides the following example: this example: "A politician is alleged to have had an affair. He or she denies it, but multiple major newspapers publish the allegations, and there is a public scandal. The allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. However, it should only state that the politician was alleged to have had the affair, not that he or she actually did. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." It is exactly what this page does. Of course this should be described merely as "allegations", not "the truth". Perhaps this page has some deficiencies, such as linking to an inappropriate primary source. If so, this must be fixed, but this is nothing special. Not a reason for deletion. My very best wishes (talk) 05:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The articles deal about different topics, so it makes sense to me to retain them separately. The Dossier is the outcome of an output of a Attack PAC of Jeb Bush, so it predates so-called "Russian Interference" in US elections. Also there is no evidence so far that Trump has succumbed to Russian blackmail in any of his business/political dealings, but there is lot of smoke on the Dossier, so I vote that these two topics should be in separate articles.J mareeswaran (talk) 15:34, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Second Thoughts There is a strong overlap between this article, Donald Trump Russia dossier, and Christopher Steele. Seems to me that contents of the dossier are off limits for obvious purposes & Steele's sole claim to fame is the authorship of this dossier, so it suggests perfect case for merging both these articles (after following due process by opening a new merge request, of course).J mareeswaran (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If that's indeed the case, BLP1E would apply to the Christopher Steele article, in which case the subject of this discussion would be the more policy-compliant target for a merger. Sławomir Biały (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If so, page Christopher Steele should be nominated for deletion, but the deletion will not succeed because he is not a person notable for only one event. Hence I do not think anyone should bother about it. My very best wishes (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This should be kept. The Christopher Steele article should be deleted/merged into this one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to 2016 United States election interference by Russia this is pure left populism, all the sources is founded by one researcher or speculative, if this articles stays we can copy all articles which exits on WikiLeaks from Afghanistan until Libya BerendWorst (talk) 18:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If by "left populism" you mean this will be a POV magnet, then consider that for every argument a counterargument can be added, so I think this article can be balanced and even used for discrediting the dossier. The dossier is speculative, but the article is not citing the dossier; it is citing notable sources that discuss the dossier. Reliability would come into consideration if the dossier was used as a source on the article Donald Trump. I'm not sure what you mean by the Wikileaks comment. Waters.Justin (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Ethanbas (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It meets GNG and has multiple reliable sources now, especially in the news. Only now, there are sources on this topic to adequately vouch for its notability. This article must be heavily monitored for POV/vandalism though. epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The subject easily meets WP:GNG as evidenced by the sustained international coverage.- MrX 14:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it. Calls to suppress not only insult thinking readers, but aim to cut off a historical trail leading to whatever conclusion(s) becomes relevant and able to be validated. All of this should be in the record with resourced vetting--that vetting now has not fully happened, and is under way. Until resourced vetting -- i.e., vetting that takes great governmental and monied power -- happens, calls to delete amount to trying to put a genie back into a bottle we may or may not wish to have around. We can decide that down the road. In the realm of public opinion, the key is to not be stupid through averting our eyes to the kinds of claims that circulate these days. Engage the claims instead of doing the authoritarian thing: hide information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.106.179 (talk • contribs)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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. Tone 14:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sport Clips[edit]

Sport Clips (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)

Nonnotable hair franchise. This article in Wikipedia has been here since 2009; so far, no in-depth references, just occasional mentions, press releases. Tags have had no effect in generating references. Promotional content. Tomwsulcer (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Someone added information to Talk:Sport Clips, maybe intending to update the article at a later time. Formatted as it is, it's not much help. Maybe there is something in the WSJ references, but it is subscription-only and I don't have access. I couldn't find significant news from sources I trust (haircuts don't get many headlines). I agree it is no more than a promotional piece. Jacknstock (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as although this is in fact nationally known and common, there's simply the same unconvincing substance of local business announcements, listings or mentions, none of which satisfy our policies, and at least Great Clips is a significant company whereas this one hasn't. SwisterTwister talk 02:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Light2021 (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Article doesn't seem to establish notability beyond being a franchise and NASCAR. Fail WP:ORGSIG as no company is considered inherently notable. Article contains mostly promotional content. CBS527^Talk 10:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2003 World Rubik's Games Championship[edit]

2003 World Rubik's Games Championship (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)

Also adding :1982 World Rubik's Cube Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) per Clarityfiend Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC) Unremarkable event. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The first one (1982 World Rubik's Cube Championship) may or may not merit its own article, but there's no real press coverage of subsequent ones. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taleb Mohammed Lodi jame Mosque[edit]

Taleb Mohammed Lodi jame Mosque (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 sole source, since created by a sockpuppet in 2011, has been user-generated wikimapia. Searches of the usual Google types, EBSCO, Gale, HighBeam, JSTOR, and ProQuest, have found no mentions in reliable sources.

Tagged for notability, and PRODed by RHaworth shortly after creation, both were removed by the sockmaster. No reliable sources confirm existence, let alone establish notability. Worldbruce (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 17:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - There aren't very many reliable sources I can find online for Beanibazar Upazila, either. That isn't because it isn't notable, nothing in that region has reliable online sources. There was a previous version of this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taleb Mohammed Lodi Jame Mosjid, and of the likely founder of the mosque: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammed Motasin Ali Lodi. For what it is worth, I'd !vote keep and help develop both pages if there were a source. Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:38, 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 keep. T. Canens (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Sudan Girl Guides Association[edit]

South Sudan Girl Guides Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable organization. First reference requires you to log in and the second reference does not mention this organization. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. We have articles on all Scout and Guide National organisations affiliated to the World bodies. Sources are a problem for South Sudan, but we do not want bias against organisations in such countries, so leave it to have time to find sources. I have informed WP:SCOUT and they might find sources. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It is that sources are difficult to find in poor new third world countries, so leave it for now. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Request admin void three related AfDs Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South Sudan Girl Guides Association/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Association of Top Achiever Scouts/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stowarzyszenie Harcerstwa Katolickiego Zawisza as WP:WIKIHOUNDING by User:Sportsfan 1234 per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Harassment.23Wikihounding_by_User:Sportsfan_1234- There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have updated the article with a few additional references. Realize this is a new country that is very poor and in the middle of a literally atrocious civil war, so reporting on Girl Guides will be low priority. Jacknstock (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep So, here's the rub: The main newspaper in the country doesn't have an online presence anymore. Relevant (stubs are available but full content is down for now. The Citizen (South Sudan) website appears to have expired. Per GNG: "Sources do not have to be available online." So, 1. We have some sources from Jacknstock. 2. We have good evidence of at least a few additional secondary sources, but 3. Those archives are not available online for the time being. Base notability appears to be a fair assumption with this evidence. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Seems to be notable and as AbstractIllusions pointed out, the sources do not have to be available online. -- Dane ^talk 01:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, extra care should be observed regarding WP:SYSTEMIC BIAS from regions not given to broad Internet availability--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you've mentioned the systemic bias essay. I have suspected that issue with several conversations here. Jack N. Stock (talk) 20:21, 20 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) 00:30, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian humanism[edit]

Libertarian humanism (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)

- most of the article has nothing to do with "libertarian humanism". - the subject isn't wiki-worthy. - creator of the page refuses to accept edits. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so, your nomination is based on... personal feelings and beliefs? do you have a valid reason for deletion; perhaps the article has no purpose? because my personal feeling is that there is at least one person wanting to liberate thier notion of humanism to depart from the status-quo of modern currents, which lean towards a popular, extreme form of secularism, society and culture. Carl Sagan is a humanist who does not adhere to atheism. http://www.ihumanism.org/2014/11/carl-sagan-a-humanist-you-should-know.html and this sentiment is echoed in his protege, Neil deGrasse Tyson; though Dr. Tyson's affiliation with the American Humanist Association is yet unclear to me. Xan81 (talk) 04:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the article says little to nothing about the subject of Libertarian humanism. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention the spectre of Joseph Stalin's State Atheism - which is itself a reason to include libertarianism; if not anarchism. Xan81 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is not an encyclopedia article, only a collection of a few direct quotes, none of which even demonstrate the existence of "libertarian humanism" as distinct from secular humanism. No evidence of notability. Jacknstock (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that isn't an argument. you're suggesting that because the subject is generally unknown the article is invalid? I'm not an author of encyclopedias, as I'm sure many people aren't; and there are many scant articles about. also, I'm not clear on what is missing from the article - it describes a lifestance and manner of thought - which are not claimed to be the original author's views. Xan81 (talk) 05:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

distinction from secular humanism is the anarchism, which is held contemptuous to influence by state and society. Xan81 (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating that the subject fails notability guidelines. It also fails Wikipedia policy because it is barely more than a collection of long quotations. Jacknstock (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

which guidelines? and is there another viewpoint which discusses the ideas which is in opposition to common, popular and proselytized atheistic notions which may be offensive and harmful, hateful to people's faiths and traditions? Because there does exist a current of conservative antitheism pushed by popular figures, such as Richard Dawkins - Militant Atheism Militant atheism (Russian: воинствующий атеизм) is a term applied to atheism which is hostile towards religion. Militant atheists have a desire to propagate the doctrine, and differ from moderate atheists because they hold religion to be harmful.Dec 5, 2016 Militant atheism - Conservapedia www.conservapedia.com/Militant_atheism Xan81 (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps the article should be a stub Xan81 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No encyclopaedic content to salvage. It's just a poor collection of quotes, as mentioned above. I'd suggest to the author of the article that they read the General Notability Guidelines thoroughly before they create another. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

that also isn't an argument - still no violation directly cited... begining to seem like persecution Xan81 (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"No encyclopaedic content to salvage" is definitely an argument in favour of deletion - why would an encyclopaedia include an entry that isn't encyclopaedic? Now, are you actually going to address that issue or are you just going to make questionable, petulant comments on every singe !vote? It's not helping you. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

there is no issue to address - it's an incomplete article because I'm neither a theologian nor an author, as stated before. it's an incomplete article; but I am positing an active and extant lifestance. persecution is persecution. Xan81 (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's rule about Assuming Good Faith? I've never had any interaction with you. Accusing me of persecution is frankly ridiculous. If it's an incomplete article, it shouldn't have been published - you should have worked on it in your sandbox or as a draft & then submitted it through the Articles for Creation process. Don't accuse people of persecuting you when all I am doing is participating in a standard process, which is designed to sift out articles that aren't suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ok - I concede the debate on grounds of not caring enough to pursue creation of an article. I am glad, however, to have made the arguments that I have - I do believe atheism, in its current form, is toxic to liberty. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation cheers - and don't hurt anyone. Xan81 (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is questioning the validity of your views, this debate is about the article and nothing more. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anyone did - I just pointed out that the arguments presented by the prosecution were baseless if they were unbecoming of wikipedia's morale and leadership. no matter, I have conceded and leave the discussion. I guess I should have went with "agnostic secular humanism," because I get a whole lot more concession with that: https://www.facebook.com/AgnosticSecularHumanism/ 157 adherents and counting. cheers Xan81 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of the people participating in this discussion, as far as I know, are employees of Wikipedia. Can I say that you must not blank the article while it is the subject of a Deletion Discussion? It may be seen as disruptive editing. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as entirely original research, so WP:TNT applies. The concept may be discussed (Gbook preview), although I'm not entirely sure whether or not it's a fringe topic. In either case, this page ain't the article Wikipedia needs on the topic. Thus, delete. Judging by the course of this AfD, this can't happen soon enough. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 22:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Caste system in India. T. Canens (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economically Backward Class - EBC[edit]

Economically Backward Class - EBC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Not notable enough to warrant its own article. I suggest deleting it and absorbing relevant content into social class. DrStrauss talk 17:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Caste system in India. Jacknstock (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and i had made a fresh page without adding any copyrighted material in Economically Backward Class - EBC thanking you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shakilsayed (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Caste system in India per Jacknstock as the most appropriate target. -- Dane ^talk 01:26, 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 delete. Tone 14:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities and towns in the United Kingdom by population[edit]

List of cities and towns in the United Kingdom by population (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 looks just like a renamed version of an older article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population which was deleted back in 2012. This article has the exact same flaws. It's main source does not state that it is showing the population of towns and cities and the population of London is from a completely different source. Seeing as the user who created this article is Taiwanese I wonder whether that old now deleted article lingers on foreign language wikipedias and he was just translating it here. Eopsid (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: We already have List of urban areas in the United Kingdom, which is what the article is covering and List of cities in the United Kingdom which is what the article's title suggests. Redundant article. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant, as stated above. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. City population is not the same as urban area population, but since this article appears to be showing urban area populations, it isn't even doing what the title states. --Michig (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Michig: We also have List of cities in the United Kingdom, which further makes the article redundant. TheMagikCow (talk) 20:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this is redundant for reasons outlined above by other contributors.Dunarc (talk) 14:15, 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 merge to Pittston, Pennsylvania. czar 06:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Pittston, Pennsylvania[edit]

Mayor of Pittston, Pennsylvania (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 mostly non-notable mayors of a small city. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pittston has a population under 8K, so the office is unnotable. I've nominated for Afd three of the five mayors who have articles. One was already nominated, and the fifth was a member of the House of Representatives. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge a significantly trimmed version of this into Pittston, Pennsylvania. While it's true that the city isn't large enough to hand its mayors an automatic WP:NPOL pass, a basic mostly unlinked list of the mayors' names isn't unreasonable information for us to maintain, so long as it's properly sourced and not a WP:HOAX. It doesn't need to be a standalone list if there's nowhere for it to link besides the city itself and one mayor who cleared NPOL for other reasons — but it's not unreasonable for them to be listed as a subsection in the city's main article rather than as a standalone spinoff. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per Bearian. A list on the Pittston page would be a good outcome. Lepricavark (talk) 16:45, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Pittston, Pennsylvania per Bearcat. Contents of lists have lower threshholds.--Rpclod (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Pittston, Pennsylvania as this is not appropriate for a stand alone article. -- Dane ^talk 01:30, 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 delete. czar 06:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dark metal[edit]

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

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

This is a classic example of an article which is nothing but a synthesis of different sources. The authors are not referring to a "Dark metal" musical genre, but rather bands from other metal genres who use "dark" imagery and themes. If this article exists, then by the same token someone could start an article about "brutal metal", "fun metal" or "depressing metal". I call the big one bitey (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For pretty much the reasons stated. Its not a real genre, and most of the listed sound extremely different to each other. it would appear that this article has been nominated before and indeed the conclusion was to delete. Hadomaru (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a metal fan and have noticed "dark metal" as a descriptor for a variety of bands, but never as a genre. Benjamin5152414 (talk) 00:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Synthesis of sources. -- Dane ^talk 01:40, 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 delete. czar 06:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Menno de Jong[edit]

Menno de Jong (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 contains original research and does not cite any source, which fails to pass WP:MUSIC. Hakken (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:34, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - completely unsourced BLP. The external links are all self-created social media accounts and a single interview with the media. DJs are notoriously run of the mill, even if they play to big parties. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No authoritative references are given. Nothing proves notability. Smacks of self-promotion.--Rpclod (talk) 20:58, 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. czar 06:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Callan-Thompson[edit]

Julia Callan-Thompson (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 individual. Keri (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - zero sources to attest to notability of this late model. The oblique reference to her son and her murder strikes me as a WP:BLP problem. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the absence of evidence for notability. Lepricavark (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The only reference provided is not authoritative and was written by the subject's son.--Rpclod (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 01:46, 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 Delete and Draftify. While there is a growing consensus that the topic is not yet notable, there's no argument presented that would prevent preserving the content to allow development for the possibility of it becoming so when and if it is released. joe decker^talk 15:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The draft is at Draft:Hello Neighbor --joe decker^talk 15:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Neighbor[edit]

Hello Neighbor (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)

Reviewed article. Prod removed with any concomitant work to add any source. Article is about upcoming game, slated for release in Q2/Q3. Could be delayed though. Fails WP:NOT. WP is not a scheduling engine, which is now established notability guidelines. scope_creep (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The game's notability is quite clearly established by the reliable sources available, which are assessed reliable at WP:VG/S. Keep. (Side note: it looks like the article creator removed the AFD banner. I would fix it but I'm on mobile.) --Izno (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm seeing below a number of "delete" !votes. I'm seeing a three reliable sources covering the work in-depth (that's RPS, GamesRadar), and PCGamer, besides all the announcements (meaning this article meets WP:SIGCOV). Given its release timeframe is this year, a deletion is certainly unwarranted. --Izno (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've listed several RS'es on the talk page. Game is clearly notable, whether or not it is delayed. This is not crystal balling. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It might be worth puting RS'es in the actual article, so they can be viewed and tested, to see if they are reliable verifiable sources. Izno, as a gamer obviously, if it is alpha stage, it will have had a number of reviews, but why were they not added when the article was created? scope_creep (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  scope_creep, 2 things: 1. These are indeed RSes. 2. Usually because the user who started the article is not aware or does not realize how Wikipedia articles need to display notability. --Izno (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sorry about deleting the AFD banner that was a accident, I think the game's worthy of an article it's clearly very popular and other game's have had an article without a definite release date, and they were not deleted, it's not worth deleting it it's already made, just one big edit when it's released and the article is perfect it saves someone the trouble of recreating it. Mr.wilson125 (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Izno It is a hard question to answer. I think it is mostly to do with awful design of the editing environment and the lack of leadership in updating the environment to a manner that ensures that new editors are fully aware and trained before they create an article. I think at the beginning the wiki was chosen as it was the best tool at hand to represent Wikipedia at the time. But now its more of a burden than a help. The current environment is static, it's like 1985 on Dec Vax, just type with Emacs and your away and functionality is bolted on with no design or rigor. And aesthetically speaking it's a dog. Even encarta looked better. scope_creep (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Draft as the only available information is the quarter release, and that's not guaranteeing us a substantial article in that time, so Drafting allows enough time and path. SwisterTwister talk 01:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Product does not yet exist. No references are provided to show any notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too Soon - The references mentioned above, on the article's talk page, are not sufficient, and (apart from ones based on the kickstarter campaign) appear to be based on press releases. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a clearly notable game, and although it is not yet released, I see no reason for the article to be deleted. Creeperparty568 ~ Cool Guy (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to draft as compromise. Articles should have sources before entering mainspace. I share concerns that video game articles enter mainspace too easily with just an announcement (see WP:NFF, for comparison). czar 09:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:TOOSOON  {MordeKyle}  ☢ 03:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: WP:TOOSOON here. Not enough sources. TheMagikCow (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do want to say, though, that moving into a draft space is a reasonable enough decision. At any rate, I've only seen this receive a smattering of attention from some publications (such as this commentary from Polygon.com). We don't have the kind of coverage that we need for a proper, well-written article. We'll see what happens once the game receives a full, expanded release. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree with my fellow editors above. This is, literally, too soon. This Afd can be closed now as delete. If there's any editor who wishes to work on the draft, they can request the same from the closing Admin and work on the same in their user space. Lourdes 13:49, 22 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. czar 06:56, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsey Bergeron[edit]

Ramsey Bergeron (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 actor in my opinion it does not pass WP:ACTOR FITINDIA (talk) 13:28, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Actor has several credits listed on IMDB^[1], commercials listed on Screen Actors Guild recognized site ^[2], and is the spokesperson for an international sports nutrition company ^[3]. Lowcawki (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note per edit summary in Draft:Ramsey Bergeron that Lowcawki is affiliated with the subject. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for more info. czar 06:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sorry, Lowcawki, the subject of your article just doesn't meet the Notability Guidelines for Actors. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON Exemplo347 (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are no authoritative references and nothing that shows notability. Just a guy who has done a bunch of stuff.--Rpclod (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. His acting credits are mostly of the red shirt type - bouncer, dad, and some guy named Mark. His modeling credits are a bit beefier (pardon the pun), but still no reliable sources attest to his notability. IMdB is the classic unreliable source; we allow it in our articles, but not as a citation. Bearian (talk) 02:06, 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 speedied as vandalism. (non-admin closure) Everymorning (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Castillo Marta[edit]

Jose Castillo Marta (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 not shown, further no references are supplied. It's is the onus of the editor to show notability and supply references KoshVorlon} 16:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC) KoshVorlon} 16:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as vandalism. It's already tagged for CSD. GAB^gab 16:16, 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. Blatantly obvious SPAs accorded less weight as usual. T. Canens (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Scherle[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:ARTIST. Unable to locate secondary sources to support notability. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Personal website, IMBD, and press release do not qualify as authoritative references. Nothing shows notability.--Rpclod (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A person does not inherit notability from the films they have worked on. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability existent - multiple mentioned projects won awards (Emmys, Golden Globes), proof of involvement existent and plausible after consulting performance royalties organizations.David2257 (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Mentioned in multiple reviews: ^[1], ^[2].Mrsspenser (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Worked on many awards winning shows as an additional composer/additional music: Mr. Robot, American Horror Story, American Crime Story: People V OJ Simpson ^[3]Mrsspenser (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Has notable upcoming composing work such as Light Wounds (2017): ^[4] which stars noteworthy actors such as Terry Serpico of 'Sneaky Pete' ^[5], Brenda Vaccaro of 'Kubo and the Two Strings' Mrsspenser (talk) 00:50, 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. Tone 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Oltrogge[edit]

Victor Oltrogge (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)

Biography sourced to the institution he was president of and ancestry sites. No evidence of notability in WP:RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:N not established. Fails WP:GNG.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - GNG threshold not met. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:08, 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 merge to The Tokens. T. Canens (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intercourse (The Tokens album)[edit]

Intercourse (The Tokens album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Only sources are to AllMusic, Discogs, etc. and to artist's own site. No evidence of significant coverage in independent or reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge to The Tokens. Coverage from Allmusic, Record Collector, NPR, and the BBC, though perhaps not enough to say about it that it can't be covered within the article on the band. --Michig (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - the release is not notable on its own. I do not see any notable reviews (Rolling Stone, Billboard?) and the re-release on CD appears on the band's own label. According to the RC review the album was rejected by Warner and the band decided to release it themselves in 1971. Merge with the main article. Karst (talk) 11:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable based on coverage found by Michig. Satisfies WP:NALBUM element #1 (subject of multiple non-trivial published works). Gab4gab (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 21:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - Nothing worthwhile can be produced from a seperate article and I doubt anyone above who listed sources is actually going to put them in. Better to merge with the Tokens as it is still partially relevant to their career.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Though noted that it's mostly on faith that the MobyGames review listings check out. czar 09:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Beast[edit]

Battle Beast (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)

Abandonware game. Only sources are to abandonware listings and play sites like Moby Games. No significant independent coverage. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• A game from that time period is unlikely to have coverage online. Have you checked for offline coverage before this AFD nomination? --Izno (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  To the extent that I checked a couple of standard periodical indexes, yes. Even if the source text from that time would be offline, the indexing would be online through research libraries (although not necessarily through Google). I don't think WP:BEFORE requires exhaustive prove-a-negative-type searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:30, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, before does not. However, it appears there's offline coverage--see the Highbeam link above. Couldn't tell you whether it's significant. There's also a few nuggets in the WP:VG/RS search. So while I won't !vote yet since I haven't had a chance to review any of these results, I might suggest there's notability for this game. --Izno (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, and I saw that one result from Knight-Ridder. In the Highbeam search it is listed multiple times but it is clearly multiple hits for the same article in multiple papers in the same chain. I didn't believe it would be considered significant coverage and ignored mentioning it That was technically incorrect in making the nom, and I apologize. I should have specified "..and one old short review at time of game's release, not creating sustained coverage."

  It looks like there's a few others too, not based on the Ridder review. Any way, I'll take a closer look later. --Izno (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mobygames lists plenty of reviews from magazine sources: [6]. Probably enough to meet notability requirements. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. --Izno (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Review of the linked Mobygames (and a few places elsewhere) indicates that there are sufficient WP:RS to meet the WP:GNG. Keep. --Izno (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - In addition to the reviews linked on Mobygames, there's a review in the December 1995 issue of Next Generation which I neglected to add to the article. Will try to add that in within the next couple of days.--Martin IIIa (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the Next Generation review to the article as planned.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:18, 15 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) 23:03, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Railway junctions in Andhra Pradesh[edit]

Railway junctions in Andhra Pradesh (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)

was PRODed but the tag was removed. The topic fails WP:STAND as none of the junctions has an article —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 08:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are in fact articles for about 19 of them, well for "railway junction stations" instead of "railway junctions". See Category:Railway junction stations in Andhra Pradesh. We don't need separate articles listing the railway junctions vs. their stations. --doncram 19:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Category:Railway junction stations in Andhra Pradesh. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:45, 7 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. Tone 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinay Berde[edit]

Abhinay Berde (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:NACTOR: The actor is better known as the son of a notable person and I can not find any significant coverage which addresses the topic directly and in details so I would say it fails WP:GNG as well. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 16:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails WP:NACTOR. No coverage that would make this notable. -- Dane ^talk 01:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for those involved in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 20 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. Tone 14:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2027 AFC Asian Cup[edit]

2027 AFC Asian Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article should be deleted as it fails WP:NOTCRYSTAL #1 because the article is about a scheduled or future event that is just speculation. The article also fails WP:NOR as there are no attributable sources this article could use now(see WP:TOOSOON). Finally, the article fails WP:GNG as it does not have significant coverage from reliable sources. I also did a Google search(WP:BEFORE) to see if there were any sources but the only things that turn up are trivial mentions of the subject. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 16:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the 2027 AFC Asian Cup article does need to be deleted because it will tell us an event in the future. it's important.\ — Note to closing admin: Badass Flare (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD.

• @Badass Flare: Firstly you are to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) and secondly that argument is WP:ITSIMPORTANT and should be avoided at deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 16:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions}/_{Your Page}) 16:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect change as redirect to AFC Asian Cup, recreate as separate article as the event draws nearer and had reliable coverage. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 15:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - 10 years away, WP:CRYSTALBALL applies, does not even merit a redirect IMHO. GiantSnowman 16:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The host is unlikely to be awarded for a few years (yet alone the decision on format etc.). Best to recreate when more information is available. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL, nothing to be said on this at all at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 09:42, 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 speedy delete. Speedy deleted as a clear hoax. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finnair Flight 666[edit]

Finnair Flight 666 (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)

Absurd article about Flight 666 on Friday the 13th, during which nothing happened, sourced to a joke article. EEng 16:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Destroy it with fire. Barely above conspiracy-theory nonsense. Wow, "people though the plane was going to hell". Give me a break, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Yintan  16:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't know whether this can be speedy deleted, but it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Lepricavark (talk) 16:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What a load of nonsense. Zero encyclopaedic value or relevance. SempreVolando (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Hoax. And the user who created this is clearly WP:NOTHERE judging by this and their talkpage. Someone shove AGF up their arse and block. Pretty please. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 17:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the flight definitely happened and there are readily available news articles online about it, but literally nothing extraordinary happened to the flight or any of the Finnair Flight 666s that are regularly scheduled. "Pepper" @ 18:39, 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. T. Canens (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 Oras Weekend[edit]

24 Oras Weekend (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)

Unsourced article, and no explanation as to why this subject is notable when 24 Oras#Weekend edition already exists. David Biddulph (talk) 14:41, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It looks like a copyvio to me. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see now. It was taken from 24 Oras by copy paste without being in edit mode. I also see that text at some pinoy tv site, but that could be reverse copyvio. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Merge. Aside from this being a poor article, it looks like a content fork from 24 Oras. I suggest deleting this and merging any real information (re-written into a decent standard of English) into that article. – The Bounder (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge per The Bounder; like all network weekend newscasts, this is literally just the same as the weekday version with the B-team anchors in the chairs instead. No need to elaborate beyond that (though the Filipino crufters WP:TV has to deal with ad nauseam will sadly never get that). Nate • (chatter) 13:01, 15 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. Tone 14:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Date Eligible for Return from Overseas[edit]

Date Eligible for Return from Overseas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a weird one, as it is about two terms. DEROS seems to exist but this is not a dictionary and it does not appear to be notable. '365...' seems marginally more so, but still doesn't seem to cross the notability threshold - term is used as title for non-notable book and non-notable blog. Boleyn (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 14:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is essentially a dictionary definition/glossary of US military terminology. The article could be redirected to Tour of duty which covers the same thing somewhat more broadly. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with redirect. Also, I was always under the impression that the "E" stood for "estimated" since return travel dates usually occurred earlier than the end of overseas tour date. See Date Estimated Return From Overseas (DEROS) for a Department of Defense site that seems to agree. --Lineagegeek (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Glossary term. Redirecting to Tour of duty sounds like a good idea. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 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. T. Canens (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maricelle[edit]